THE LATEST ON ROBINSON V. BROWN
February 16, 2011 § 4 Comments
The COA case of Robinson v. Brown, handed down January 25, was the subject of a previous post in which I alerted chancery lawyers that the case appeared to change the law that post-trial motions were not required in chancery court to preserve error for appeal. I also pointed out that MRCP 52(b) specifically excepts non-jury trials from the post-trial motion requirement.
In the COA’s handdowns on February 15, this entry appeared:
EN BANC
2009-CA-01599-COA
Mary Elizabeth Brown Robinson v. Paul Arthur Brown
Lee Chancery Court; LC Case #: 02-0518(41)H; Ruling Date: 08/06/2009; Ruling Judge: John Hatcher; Disposition: The Court on its own motion stays the mandate and grants rehearing. Order entered.
Is the COA going to circle back to where we were pre-January 25? Stay tuned.
[…] posted here, here and here about the COA and post-trial […]
It will be interesting. Take a look at Allgood v. Allgood, handed down yesterday by the COA.
The Court went straight into the merits of the appeal after noting “Rather than file post-trial motions to allow the chancellor to address any perceived errors, Claudia noticed the present appeal twenty-eight days after the chancellor entered his judgment in this case.”
Yes! I caught that. I wonder where they are going with that and how they will reconcile MRCP 52(b) with it. We’ll see.
Excellent! Someone up there must read your blog!