Tiller v. Tiller
| Decision Date | 03 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 8484,8484 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 573,98 Ariz. 156 |
| Parties | Lucille TILLER, Appellant, v. Sam D. TILLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Douglas C. Howard, Tucson, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This is an appeal in a divorce action wherein the appellant, Lucille Tiller, was the plaintiff and the appellee, Sam Tiller, was the defendant, the plaintiff having received a judgment of divorce which incorporated and adopted a property settlement made by the parties. Subsequently a controversy arose regarding the nature of the payments to be made to the wife as result of the property settlement and the subsequent judgment incorporating the settlement. Appellant contends that the order is enforceable by contempt proceedings. The appellee contends that the payments were a contractual obligation and therefore not enforceable by contempt. The trial judge held for the appellee.
Appellant has raised several errors challenging the judgment of the trial court. Appellee has not favored us with a brief and this case has been submitted for decision under Rule 7(a)2, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. As there are debatable issues this Court will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee. Wilson v. Wilson, 94 Ariz. 353, 385 P.2d 226 (1963); Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963); Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Tom v. Baca, 93 Ariz. 96, 378 P.2d 912 (1963); Nelson v. Nelson, 91 Ariz. 215, 370 P.2d 952 (1962); Stover v. Kesmar, 84 Ariz. 387, 329 P.2d 1107 (1958); Dowding v. Smithers, 82 Ariz. 261, 311 P.2d 967 (1957).
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiler v. Arizona Bank
...constitutes a confession of reversible error. Town of Cottonwood v. Evans, 13 Ariz.App. 595, 480 P.2d 16 (1971); Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 402 P.2d 573 (1965). In view of the necessity to fully review the record to determine the propriety of summary judgment, and in view of the potent......
-
Ghyselinck v. Buchanan
...our Supreme Court to be a confession of error when the opening brief has presented issues that are at least debatable. Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 402 P.2d 573 (1965); Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963); Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963); Nelson v. N......
-
Arizona Tank Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 1
...this may be taken as a confession of error if the appellant has presented debatable issues in his opening brief. Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 402 P.2d 573 (1965), Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963), Barrett v. Hiney, 94 Ariz. 133, 382 P.2d 240 (1963), Nelson v. Nelson,......
-
Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley
...brief. We will assume that the failure to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error, Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 402 P.2d 573 (1965); Siemers v. Randall, 94 Ariz. 302, 383 P.2d 753 (1963), if the reasons presented for reversal are 'debatable.' It is, however, ......