Tourville v. Tourville, 42596
| Decision Date | 19 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 42596,42596 |
| Citation | 289 Minn. 544,185 N.W.2d 281 |
| Parties | Lloyd Alexander TOURVILLE, Appellant, v. Mary Ann TOURVILLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Douglass, Bell, Donlin, Shultz & Petersen, and Warren Horner, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and MURPHY, ROGOSHESKE, KELLY and ODDEN, JJ.
Plaintiff timely filed a pro se appeal from a denial of his post-trial motions and from the judgment awarding defendant a divorce, custody of their 10-year-old son, child support, alimony, and a division of property acquired during coverture. Thereafter, he filed an additional notice of appeal from an order of the district court issued after the entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 108, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, the purpose and effect of which was to require plaintiff to execute a supersedeas bond, as required by Rule 108.01, in the amount of $3,250 if he desired to stay the enforcement of the judgment during the pendency of his appeal.
Plaintiff's appeal from this order was based upon his misconception that the district court intended thereby to compel him to file a supersedeas bond as a condition to his right to an appellate review of the merits of the court's decision. Despite assurances to the contrary by defense counsel, he has persisted in this misconception and has failed to comply with Rule 110.02, with respect to a transcript of the proceedings, or Rule 128, governing the contents of an appellate brief, to enable this court to review the matter on the merits. Rather, his brief and oral argument are devoted solely to the elementary principle of appellate procedure, with which all would agree, that a review on the merits is not precluded by appellant's decision not to seek a stay of proceedings pending appeal by exercising his right not to file a supersedeas bond.
Giving plaintiff the benefit of doubt that his failure to properly complete and present his appeal on the merits is due to his unfortunate misconception of the effect of the order setting the amount of the supersedeas bond, we do not dismiss his appeal, as would clearly be justified for noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 157 N.W.2d 530. According him every possible consideration, we continue his appeal, renewing it in point of time as being filed as of the date this decision is filed with the clerk of this court. Within 10 days of said date, pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
...of the merits of the court's decision." All Lease Co. v. Peters, 424 N.W.2d 320, 321 (Minn.App.1988) (quoting Tourville v. Tourville, 289 Minn. 544, 545, 185 N.W.2d 281, 282 (1971)). A supersedeas bond is simply a prerequisite for a stay while an appeal is heard. Therefore, the failure to p......
-
Marque Plumbing, Inc. v. Barris, C8-85-1979
...Minn. 339, 340, 10 N.W.2d 229, 229 (1943). A supersedeas bond is not a prerequisite to securing appellate review. Tourville v. Tourville, 289 Minn. 544, 185 N.W.2d 281 (1971). Rule 108.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure provides that proceedings in the trial court shall ......
-
Marque Plumbing, Inc. v. Barris
...339, 340, 10 N.W.2d 229, 229 (Minn.1943). A supersedeas bond is not a prerequisite to securing appellate review. Tourville v. Tourville, 289 Minn. 544, 185 N.W.2d 281 (1971). Rule 108.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure provides that proceedings in the trial court shall b......
-
Sutton v. Hansen
...not to seek a stay of proceedings pending appeal by exercising his right not to file a supersedeas bond. Tourville v. Tourville, 289 Minn. 544, 545, 185 N.W.2d 281, 282 (1971). Although the Hansens cannot simply look to the court administrator for funds to pay a judgment, an award of effect......