Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationappealtrialdivorce
litigationappealtrialdivorce

Related Cases

Lucero v. Lucero, 485 So.2d 347
View Case »
Hayes v. Hayes, 209 Mich.App. 385, 532 N.W.2d 190
View Case »
Watson v. Hinson, 162 N.C. 72, 77 S.E. 1089, Am.Ann.Cas. 1915A,870
View Case »
Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 817, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,617, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,491
View Case »
Page v. Gillett, 47 Colo. 289, 107 P. 290
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Campbell v. Campbell, 357 Pa.Super. 483, 516 A.2d 363

Facts

Charles J. Campbell and Judith I. Campbell were married on November 28, 1963, and separated in June 1980. Judith filed for divorce on February 25, 1981, and Charles counterclaimed for a fault divorce. The parties stipulated to an uncontested divorce, but the master's report only recommended a scheme for distributing marital property without including a divorce decree. The trial court later entered a divorce decree, which incorporated the prior order of equitable distribution, leading to appeals from both parties regarding the distribution of marital property.

Charles J. Campbell and Judith I. Campbell were married on November 28, 1963, and separated in June 1980. Judith filed for divorce on February 25, 1981, and Charles counterclaimed for a fault divorce. The parties stipulated to an uncontested divorce, but the master's report only recommended a scheme for distributing marital property without including a divorce decree. The trial court later entered a divorce decree, which incorporated the prior order of equitable distribution, leading to appeals from both parties regarding the distribution of marital property.

Issue

Whether the decree distributing marital property was final and appealable despite the divorce decree being entered after the appeal.

Whether the decree distributing marital property was final and appealable despite the divorce decree being entered after the appeal.

Rule

A final order has been defined as one which ends the litigation or disposes of the entire case, and an order is interlocutory and not final unless it effectively puts the litigant 'out of court.'

A final order has been defined as one which ends the litigation or disposes of the entire case, and an order is interlocutory and not final unless it effectively puts the litigant 'out of court.'

Analysis

The court determined that the order of equitable distribution was final and appealable because it was followed by the entry of a final divorce decree. The court found that the trial court's initial order, although entered under the mistaken belief that a divorce decree had already been issued, did not prejudice the rights of either party and thus could be reviewed.

The court determined that the order of equitable distribution was final and appealable because it was followed by the entry of a final divorce decree. The court found that the trial court's initial order, although entered under the mistaken belief that a divorce decree had already been issued, did not prejudice the rights of either party and thus could be reviewed.

Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order distributing marital property, concluding that the equitable distribution order was final and appealable.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order distributing marital property, concluding that the equitable distribution order was final and appealable.

Who won?

Judith I. Campbell prevailed in the case as the court affirmed the equitable distribution order, which favored her economic claims.

Judith I. Campbell prevailed in the case as the court affirmed the equitable distribution order, which favored her economic claims.

You must be