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.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 
[…] 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.
Click to access CO65417.pdf
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!