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

appealtrialprobatedivorce
appealtrialprobatedivorce

Related Cases

Marco Distributing, Inc. v. Biehl, 97 Idaho 853, 555 P.2d 393
View Case »
Sinclair v. Sinclair, 804 So.2d 589, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D209
View Case »
Garza v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 418 S.W.2d 595
View Case »
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63, 69 USLW 4157, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1619, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2079, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 112, 2001 DJCAR 1059
View Case »
Galva Foundry Co. v. Heiden, 924 F.2d 729
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Slade v. Slade, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 376, 682 N.E.2d 1385

Facts

After less than four years of marriage, James Slade filed for divorce from Tonette Slade in the Hampden County Probate and Family Court. A pretrial order was issued, limiting the trial to the division of specific items of personal property. The trial judge ultimately entered a judgment of divorce nisi, ordering a division of marital assets and requiring the husband to pay the wife $10,000, despite the pretrial order's limitations.

After less than four years of marriage, James Slade filed for divorce from Tonette Slade in the Hampden County Probate and Family Court. A pretrial order was issued, limiting the trial to the division of specific items of personal property.

Issue

Did the trial judge err by exceeding the limitations imposed by the pretrial order and addressing issues that were not contested or litigated by the parties?

Did the trial judge err by exceeding the limitations imposed by the pretrial order and addressing issues that were not contested or litigated by the parties?

Rule

The court must adhere to the limitations set forth in a pretrial order unless modified to prevent manifest injustice, and issues not included in the order are waived.

The court must adhere to the limitations set forth in a pretrial order unless modified to prevent manifest injustice, and issues not included in the order are waived.

Analysis

The Appeals Court found that the trial judge's deviation from the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion. The order clearly stated that the only issue to be determined at trial was the division of specified personal property. The judge's decision to consider additional assets was a surprise to the parties and not supported by any request for modification of the order.

The Appeals Court found that the trial judge's deviation from the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion. The order clearly stated that the only issue to be determined at trial was the division of specified personal property.

Conclusion

The Appeals Court vacated the portion of the judgment related to the monetary award while affirming the rest of the judgment.

The Appeals Court vacated the portion of the judgment related to the monetary award while affirming the rest of the judgment.

Who won?

James Slade prevailed in part because the court agreed that the trial judge exceeded her authority by addressing issues outside the pretrial order.

James Slade prevailed in part because the court agreed that the trial judge exceeded her authority by addressing issues outside the pretrial order.

You must be