Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Jerry L. Valentine, for appellant. Joseph W. Opstelten, for appellee.
Judges
  • Opinion by JUDGE RULAND.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Jerry L. Valentine, for appellant. Joseph W. Opstelten, for appellee.
Judges
  • Opinion by JUDGE RULAND.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Case Summary: In re the Marriage of Billy H. Jones and Gertrude L. Jones, No. 79CA0265 (Colo. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 1979)

Factual and Procedural Background

This dissolution of marriage action resulted in a trial court order dividing marital assets, awarding the wife maintenance, and directing the husband to pay a portion of the wife's attorney's fees. The record shows the parties had accumulated marital assets valued at approximately $155,000. The trial court awarded the wife maintenance of $400 per month and directed the husband to pay $1,000 toward the wife's attorney's fees. After entry of the order, the marital assets were distributed in accordance with the court's directives, and the husband accepted the benefits accruing to him from that distribution. The husband, Billy H. Jones, appealed that part of the order awarding maintenance to Gertrude L. Jones. The Court of Appeals, Division II (Opinion by Judge Ruland), dismissed the appeal. Rehearing was denied September 20, 1979; certiorari was granted November 19, 1979. Judges Pierce and Berman concurred.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a husband who accepts the benefits accruing to him under a trial court's division of marital property is foreclosed from seeking appellate review of the award of maintenance contained in the same order.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Farmers Elevator Co. v. First National Bank, 181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973) One who accepts the legal advantages accruing to him under a judgment waives his right to any review of the adjudication which may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted. The court applied this principle to hold that the husband, having accepted the benefits of the property division, waived his right to appellate review of the maintenance award contained in the same order.
Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972) The issues pertaining to division of property and maintenance must be considered together in determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion. The court relied on this principle to explain that an error in either property division or maintenance requires reconsideration of both together on remand.
In re Marriage of Lodholm, 35 Colo. App. 411, 536 P.2d 842 (1975) Illustration that error in resolution of either property division or maintenance requires remand for reconsideration of both. Used as an example supporting the proposition that property division and maintenance are interrelated and must be reviewed together, reinforcing why acceptance of property benefits precludes appellate review of maintenance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned in two linked steps. First, it invoked the principle that a party who accepts the legal advantages conferred by a judgment waives the right to appellate review of aspects of that judgment which could affect the accepted benefit. Second, the court noted that division of property and awards of maintenance are interrelated and must be examined together when assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion; consequently, any error in one generally requires reconsideration of both. Combining these principles, the court concluded that because the husband accepted the benefits accruing to him under the property division, he was foreclosed from seeking appellate review of the maintenance award in the same order. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Direct effect: The husband's appeal of the maintenance award was dismissed because he had accepted the benefits of the trial court's property division, thereby waiving appellate review of the maintenance determination contained in the same order. The opinion does not purport to establish a new rule beyond applying existing Colorado authority that acceptance of judgment benefits waives corresponding appellate challenges and that property division and maintenance determinations are to be considered together.

Show full summary ...

In re the Marriage of Billy H. Jones and Gertrude L. Jones

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Husband Accepted — Assets Distributed — Foreclosed — Seeking Appellate Review — Award of Maintenance. Where, in dissolution of marriage action, husband accepted the benefits accruing to him pursuant to the trial court's division of property, he was foreclosed from seeking appellate review of the award of maintenance contained in the same order.

Opinion by JUDGE RULAND.

In an action for dissolution of marriage, appellant, Billy H. Jones, appeals from that part of the trial court's order awarding appellee, Gertrude L. Jones, maintenance in the amount of $400 per month. We dismiss the appeal.

The record reflects that the parties had accumulated marital assets valued at approximately $155,000. In its order, the trial court divided these assets between the parties, awarded wife the maintenance complained of, and directed husband to pay $1,000 toward attorney's fees incurred by wife. Subsequent to entry of the order, the marital assets were distributed in compliance with the court's order, and the husband accepted the benefits accruing to him as a result of that order.

[1] One who accepts the legal advantages accruing to him under a judgment waives his right to any review of the adjudication which may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted. Farmers Elevator Co. v. First National Bank, 181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973). And, because the issues pertaining to the division of property and maintenance must be considered together in determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, see Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972), any error in the resolution of either issue requires a remand for reconsideration of both. See e.g., In re Marriage of Lodholm, 35 Colo. App. 411, 536 P.2d 842 (1975). Therefore, where, as here a husband accepts the benefits accruing to him pursuant to the trial court's division of property, he is foreclosed from seeking appellate review of the award of maintenance contained in the same order.

Opinion by JUDGE RULAND.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE BERMAN concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

IN RE MARRIAGE OF JONES
(Aug 23, 1979)