15 August 2005

Catch-22

Occassionally, you will see a case the uniquely captures the angst of being a lawyer. The Colorado Appeals blog August 12th edition, has found a fine one and I will quote its description of the situation at length:

Husband's tort claims against wife, which are legal in nature, should not be joined in dissolution action, which is equitable in nature, because the joinder would inject extraneous issues that are difficult to address in the unique context of marital dissolution. Husband was not barred, however, from seeking equitable relief for wife's alleged actions. Marriage of Mockelmann In the related tort case, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the husband's tort claims, concluding that the claims should be pursued in the dissolution court which had continuing jurisdiction. The upshot of the cases read together is the husband's relief seems limited to equitable relief sought in the dissolution court. Mockelmann v. Mockelmann


Not to put too fine a point on it, the same three judges, including the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, chose to write two seperate opinions on two intextricably intertwined cases, and release them on the same day, despite the fact that on their face their reasoning was contradictory, and required the parties to read between the lines rather than coming out and saying what they really meant. We deserve better from our public servants.

1 comment:

finance clubinc said...

Thanks for this article prophet :)