Court Opinion

ID: 9807084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:46:48.477826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:11.839683
License: Public Domain

WATT, J.,
concurring specially:
{1 I remain a concurree to the memorandum opinion notwithstanding the positions articulated in the dissent and the views expressed in the special writing by the Vice Chief Justice.
T2 The "acceptance of benefit doctrine" has long been a part of our jurisprudence for many decades and I see no reason to depart from it now.
T3 The appellant, in negotiating appellee's check made payable to her for slightly under ONE BILLION DOLLARS, gave to the ap-peliant everything the trial court ordered that she receive.
T4 This domestic relations case is unlike any other in this jurisdiction that I have seen in over 40 years as a former trial lawyer and trial court judge.
15 Good lawyering is essential in these unique cases and both parties have been represented by outstanding and very talented legal counsel.
T6 While it may be technically and procedurally true that today's dismissal of appellant's appeal leaves appellee's counter-appeal pending. However, from a practical standpoint and because each party now possesses all that was awarded to them respectively by the trial court, it is my belief that appellee's counter-appeal will "GO AWAY" by whatever procedure appellee's counsel may take.
7 I have not in the past nor will I do so in this case, attempt to substitute my judgment for that of the trial court who was in the best position to enter judgment in this case.
T8 The parties hereto have spent millions in dissolving this marital relationship and resolving an equitable division of the marital estate. The appellee by paying almost one billion dollars to the appellant and her acceptance and negotiation of it, have obviated the necessity of each party paying millions more to proceed further with an appeal.