Opinion ID: 4579806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Caliber’s Cross-Appeal

Text: Caliber filed a protective cross-appeal. “We have allowed parties to bring protective crossappeals to be considered in the event that the appellant . . . succeeds in its own appeal.” Martin Cty Coal Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 727 F.3d 589, 598 (6th Cir. 2013). “A protective cross-appeal differs from a cross-appeal because the protective cross-appellant is not 12 Nos. 19-4042/4088, Richard v. Caliber Homes necessarily dissatisfied with the judgment. Appellate courts generally allow protective crossappeals but do not consider them unless it is appropriate to do so after the disposition of the appeal.” Id. (internal alterations and citation omitted). In its protective cross-appeal, Caliber states that if “the Court finds no merit in [Richard’s] appeal, the Court need not consider this cross-appeal and can affirm the judgment below.” Because we find no merit in Richard’s appeal, we need not consider Caliber’s protective cross-appeal.