Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Estoppel
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ILLINOIS: Bidani v. Lewis, ___ Ill. App. 3d ___, 675 N.E.2d 647 (1996).
The doctrine of judicial estoppel barred the husband from claiming an interest in business entities contrary to his statements in earlier divorce proceedings, despite his stated intention to share any recovery with his former wife.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: Weinig v. Weinig, 674 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
The wife's oral statements during the marriage that she would relinquish any claim to the husband's lottery winnings in the event of divorce did not equitably estop her from claiming a share of the winnings, where the husband did not rely to his detriment on those statements.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MAINE: Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 640 A.2d 205 (Me. 1994).
Judgment entered in wife's divorce action collaterally estopped her from denying responsibility for the burning of her house.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Besand v. Gibbar, 982 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
The husband was not collaterally estopped after the parties' dissolution proceedings from bringing an action against a business entity in which the former wife had been awarded an interest.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MISSOURI: Missouri Mexican Products, Inc. v. Dunafon, 873 S.W.2d 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
Doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded business solely owned by husband from relitigating right to possession of antique car which was awarded to wife in dissolution action.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MONTANA: In re Marriage of McNellis, ___ Mont. ___, 885 P.2d 412 (1994).
The husband was estopped from changing his testimony concerning the value of a family investment, where he had all along asserted that the property was worth a certain amount but then sought to revise his estimate at trial.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Perkins v. Perkins, ___ A.D.2d ___, 641 N.Y.S.2d 396 (1996).
The husband was estopped from contending that he had any interest in a farm titled in the wife's name, where he had testified to the contrary in an earlier action by a third-party creditor against him.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Verholek v. Verholek, 741 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999).
The husband, who originally asserted that certain shares of stock were jointly owned by him and his wife, was estopped from later claiming that they were nonmarital property. The husband was also estopped from claiming that a certain inheritance was nonmarital property, because it had been commingled with marital funds.
Subscription Read More About This Case

VERMONT: 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.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

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.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.