|
|
|
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.
Read More About This CaseINDIANA: 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.
Read More About This CaseMAINE: 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.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: 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.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: 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.
Read More About This CaseMONTANA: 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.
Read More About This CaseNEW 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.
Read More About This CasePENNSYLVANIA: 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.
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. |