Court Opinion

ID: 9739838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:22:01.264704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.199581
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I agree that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in allowing testimony regarding the financial status of the plaintiff under the circumstances of this case.
*249I write separately to express my concern relative to the motion to dismiss. Although Sulsky may have taken nothing from the judgment of the trial court because the trial court did not rescind the contract for deed as she requested, it is nevertheless inconsistent to accept payments due under the contract for deed and, at the same time, appeal from a judgment holding the contract for deed valid. Under ordinary circumstances acceptance of payments due under the contract for deed would, at least to me, clearly reveal an intention to acquiesce in the judgment. However, I agree with the majority opinion that under the circumstances of this case, wherein the second payment was tendered to Sulsky directly without knowledge of her counsel, dismissal of the appeal is not justified.