Court Opinion

ID: 9529892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:55:13.553851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:56.924110
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, dissenting: Dr. Stotlar accepted substantial assets assigned to him by the decree. The trial court in its order denying Dr. Stotlar’s post trial motion said: “The Court further finds that it appears the PlaintiffCounterdefendant has chosen to rely on those portions of said Decree that he finds acceptable and with which he agrees and challenge those portions with which he does not agree.” A party cannot accept those parts of a decree which are favorable to him and appeal those parts that are unfavorable. (Boylan v. Boylan, 349 Ill. 471 (1932).) Therefore, in my opinion Dr. Stotlar is precluded from pursuing this appeal. I also believe that the majority erred in holding that Mrs. Stotlar had no interest in the stocks bought by Dr. Stotlar from the joint bank account. Gerhardt v. Gerhardt, 18 Ill. App. 3d 658, 310 N.E.2d 224 (3d Dist. 1974); Gercke v. Gercke, 331 Ill. 413, 419, 163 N.E. 323 (1928); Kratzer v. Kratzer, 130 Ill. App. 2d 762, 266 N.E.2d 419 (4th Dist. 1971).