Opinion ID: 167743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FM's cross-appeal

Text: 59 Finally, as to FM's cross-appeal, FM appears to argue that should we disagree with the jury's verdict as to the reasonableness of Leprino's expectations under the policy, that we should then consider FM's argument that the issue of reasonable expectations was erroneously submitted to the jury. Based on our previous holdings that the district court erred in its grant of partial summary judgment to FM and a new trial is warranted, this contention is moot. However, we note that [t]aking a cross-appeal was neither necessary nor appropriate for this purpose. Only a party aggrieved by the judgment may appeal, and [FM] was 100% successful. Gooden v. Neal, 17 F.3d 925, 935 (7th Cir.1994). FM was entitled to make clear his position . . . without the need for a cross-appeal. Id. We direct FM to bear the costs of the cross-appeal.