Case Name: SOCHA v. SOCHA
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-02-23
Citations: 22 Mich. App. 8
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,829
Parties: SOCHA v. SOCHA
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 22
Pages: 8–9

Head Matter:
SOCHA v. SOCHA
Appeal and Error — Review able Questions — Consent Judgment.
The Court of Appeals will not grant appellate relief where plaintiff sought and consented to a judgment in the trial court for the purpose of obtaining a final reviewable judgment.
Reperence for Points in Headnote
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 552.
Appeal from Wayne, Benjamin D. Burdick, J.
Submitted Division 1 February 10, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 5,829.)
Decided February 23, 1970.
Rehearing denied April 7, 1970.
Complaint by Steve Socha against Jean Socha for divorce. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John H. Brennan, for plaintiff.
Victor Targonski, for defendant.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff appeals from an amended default judgment entered on his motion in the trial court. On appeal, plaintiff raises and briefs four issues as the basis for appellate relief.
A review of the record presented to this Court indicates, at least inferentially, that the amended de fault judgment appealed from was the result of cooperation, negotiation and participation on the part of counsel for both parties. In our view, plaintiff's present, uncorroborated statement that he moved for entry of that judgment in order to obtain a final reviewable judgment does not overcome the record inference. ¥e are not persuaded that plaintiff is not seeking appellate relief from the relief he sought and consented to in the trial court. This may not he done. Dora v. Lesinski (1958), 351 Mich 579.
We find it is unnecessary to discuss this case further.
Affirmed with costs to defendant.