White v. White, 880140
Decision Date | 09 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 880140,880140 |
Parties | Martha Florence WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Thomas Henry WHITE, Defendant and Appellee. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Lundberg, Nodland, Schulz & Lervick, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Ardell Tharaldson.
Anseth & Zander, Williston, for defendant and appellee; argued by Janet Holter Zander.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Martha White, from a district court judgment granting a divorce from the defendant, Thomas White, making a division of property and awarding spousal support. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.
On October 18, 1988, Thomas filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 27 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure upon the ground that Martha unconditionally, voluntarily, and conscientiously demanded, received and accepted all of the benefits granted her under the judgment, and thereby waived her right to appeal. Accordingly, we will first consider Thomas' motion to dismiss.
Martha and Thomas were married in May of 1955. Irreconcilable differences arose between the parties and a judgment of divorce was entered in Williams County District Court on March 15, 1988. At the time the divorce judgment was entered, Martha was 57 years old and Thomas was 56 years old.
The divorce judgment provided in relevant part as follows:
On February 24, 1988, prior to entry of the formal judgment, Martha forwarded to Thomas a quit claim deed for him to sign as to the homestead which was jointly owned real property. Instead, Thomas, preferring a warranty deed, prepared and signed on March 3, 1988, a warranty deed to Martha for the homestead. In turn, Martha signed on March 17, 1988, a warranty deed to Thomas for the rental house. On March 22, 1988, Martha, through her attorney, wrote a letter to Thomas' counsel requesting a meeting for the purpose of dividing the remaining joint assets. Additionally, Martha demanded a bill of sale from Thomas for the bar and requested that Thomas sign off of the bar's liquor license. Accordingly, a meeting was held on March 31, 1988, at which time titles to the motor vehicles were signed and exchanged, the war bonds were divided, the coin collection was divided, and the US mint coin collection was divided. Also, at this meeting, Thomas relinquished rights to the bar and his name was removed from the liquor license as requested by Martha. On May 10, 1988, Martha filed a notice of appeal.
Thomas contends that Martha's acceptance of all the benefits under the judgment and her present attempt to attack the judgment on appeal are inconsistent, and an election to take the benefits under the judgment was a renunciation of her right of appeal.
The general rule in North Dakota is that a party to a divorce action who accepts substantial benefits pursuant to a divorce judgment thereby waives the right to appeal from the judgment. Brodersen v. Brodersen, 374 N.W.2d 76, 77 (N.D.1985); Geier v. Geier, 332 N.W.2d 261, 263 (N.D.1983); Sanford v. Sanford, 295 N.W.2d 139, 141 (N.D.1980).
We recognized in Sanford v. Sanford, supra at 141-142, that the general rule was subject to several recognized exceptions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fercho v. Fercho
...and property "to which he or she was entitled as a matter of right." 281 N.W.2d at 563. Davis , at 311-12, (quoting White v. White , 434 N.W.2d 361, 363 (N.D. 1989) ) (cleaned up). We have also declined to dismiss the appeal where the appellant's right to the benefit was not disputed by the......
-
Lyon v. Ford Motor Co.
...rule that one who accepts a substantial benefit of a judgment waives the right to appeal from the judgment. See, e.g., White v. White, 434 N.W.2d 361, 363-64 (N.D.1989); Geier v. Geier, 332 N.W.2d 261, 264 (N.D. 1983). Even though the acceptance-of-benefits rule of waiver is conceptually re......
-
Davis v. Davis, 890342
...who accepts substantial benefits pursuant to a divorce judgment thereby waives the right to appeal from the judgment. White v. White, 434 N.W.2d 361, 363 (N.D.1989); Brodersen v. Brodersen, 374 N.W.2d 76, 77 (N.D.1985). However, in White, supra at 363, we "We recognized in Sanford v. Sanfor......
-
Spooner v. Spooner, 900338
...for an appellant in a divorce case to have to choose between economic adversity and the right to appeal. Kevin relies on White v. White, 434 N.W.2d 361 (N.D.1989), and Geier v. Geier, 332 N.W.2d 261 (N.D.1983). In both these cases, we found that the appellant had affirmatively accepted subs......