|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Joinder
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
ALASKA: McGee v. McGee, 974 P.2d 983 (Alaska 1999).
The wife's tort claim against the husband with respect to marital assets did not have to be litigated in her motion for relief for judgment based on the same underlying facts.
Read More About This CaseFLORIDA: Snedaker v. Snedaker, 660 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. DCA 1995).
The wife's battery claim could be pleaded as a separate count in the parties' dissolution action.
Read More About This CaseGEORGIA: Shah v. Shah, ___ Ga. ___, 513 S.E.2d 730 (1999).
A fraudulent conveyance claim against a third party may be joined in a divorce action for the limited purpose of adjudicating the relative substantive rights of the parties, but an independent tort claim against the grantee may not be maintained in the divorce action.
Read More About This CaseNEW JERSEY: Mustilli v. Mustilli, 287 N.J. Super. 612, 671 A.2d 653 (Ch. Div. 1995).
New Jersey's "entire controversy doctrine" required the husband to assert his malpractice claim against his first lawyer within the matrimonial action in which the alleged malpractice occurred, but the malpractice claim should be severed from the matrimonial claim.
Read More About This CaseNORTH DAKOTA: Selland v. Selland, 519 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. 1994).
The husband's complaint seeking money damages from domestic violence advocates who had assisted the wife could not be joined in the parties' divorce proceeding.
Read More About This CaseTEXAS: Brinkman v. Brinkman, 966 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. App. 1998).
The wife's assault claim against the husband was barred by res judicata.
Read More About This CaseWISCONSIN: Knafelc v. Dain Bosworth, Inc., ___ Wis. 2d ___, 591 N.W.2d 611 (Ct. App. 1999).
The wife's securities fraud action against the husband did not have to be litigated in divorce court because it did not allege a cause of action for breach of good-faith duty between spouses.
Read More About This CaseWISCONSIN: Caulfield v. Caulfield, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 515 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1994).
The wife's legal action against the husband for judgment on a loan note did not have to be joined with the parties' pending divorce action.
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. |