|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Appeal
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
ARKANSAS: Skokos v. Skokos, 332 Ark. 520, 968 S.W.2d 26 (1998).
A spouse's acceptance of the benefits of a decree does not waive the right to appeal the decree where the parties specifically agreed that the spouse could appeal the decree despite the acceptance of the benefits.
Read More About This CaseCOLORADO: In re Marriage of Burford, 950 P.2d 682 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
The wife did not waive her right to appeal by accepting the benefits of the equitable distribution order.
Read More About This CaseILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Young, 244 Ill. App. 3d 313, 614 N.E.2d 423 (1993).
Order awarding wife attorney's fees for husband's failure to comply with discovery orders was not a final and appealable order.
Read More About This CaseMARYLAND: Dietz v. Dietz, 351 Md. 683, 720 A.2d 298 (1998).
The "acquiescence" rule, which limits the right to appeal by a party who has taken a position inconsistent with the right of appeal, does not apply where the appellee does not contest an undisputed minimum part of the judgment and the appellant seeks only to increase the amount awarded.
Read More About This CaseMARYLAND: Dietz v. Dietz, 117 Md. App. 724, 701 A.2d 1144 (1997).
If a spouse knowingly and voluntarily accepts any of the benefits of a monetary award under a judgment of divorce, such acceptance constitutes a waiver of any errors in the judgment and bars that party from maintaining an appeal.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: George v. George, 991 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
The husband's act of accepting payment of the amount that the trial court awarded him to effectuate equitable distribution estopped him from appealing the judgment.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: Hicks v. Hicks, 859 S.W.2d 842 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Wife who purchased parties' real estate after dissolution decree thereby waived her right to pursue appeal challenging trial court's authority to order sale of realty.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: Reynolds v. Reynolds, 861 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Wife who was under significant financial distress did not waive her right to appeal by accepting payment of her entire award.
Read More About This CaseNEW YORK: Lavin v. Lavin, ___ A.D.2d ___, 694 N.Y.S.2d 243 (1999).
The husband had the right to appeal the entry of a QDRO that was proposed to implement the terms of the separation agreement, which had been incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.
Read More About This CaseNEW YORK: Roffey v. Roffey, ___ A.D.2d ___ , 630 N.Y.S.2d 114 (1995).
By accepting and disposing of assets distributed to him, the husband waived his right to challenge the equitable distribution award on appeal.
Read More About This CaseNORTH DAKOTA: Wetzel v. Wetzel, 589 N.W.2d 889 (N.D. 1999).
The wife's acceptance of payment of her entire award did not waive her right to appeal from the judgment.
Read More About This CaseOHIO: McCoy v. McCoy, 91 Ohio App. 3d 570, 632 N.E.2d 1358 (1993).
Where the trial court overvalued the husband's physical therapy practice and therefore made an excessive award to the wife, it would be proper for the appellate court to order a remittitur.
Read More About This CaseOHIO: Oatey v. Oatey, 83 Ohio App. 3d 251, 614 N.E.2d 1054 (1992) (published 1993).
Order to liquidate real property within 60 days to pay wife's prospective attorney's fees constituted a final appealable order.
Read More About This CaseVERMONT: Dreves v. Dreves, ___ Vt. ___, 628 A.2d 558 (1993).
Whether or not letter from husband's attorney conceding value of parties' home should have been admitted, husband would not have been estopped from arguing a lower value for home.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions. |