Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Burnham v. Burnham

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided June 16, 2015No. 2012-CA-01218-COAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJames, J.

¶ 29. I agree with the part of the majority opinion that denies the supersedeas bond. Matthew is primarily responsible for the monetary judgment, and therefore he cannot sign as a surety for the appeal bond. Matthew has not satisfied the requirements of Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a), and therefore, he is not entitled to a supersedeas bond. As to the calculation of child support and the equitable distribution of marital assets and debts, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 30. In the case at hand, the trial court essentially adopted the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. FergusonMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Armstrong v. ArmstrongMississippi Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Brooks v. BrooksMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Omnibank of Mantee v. United Southern BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Lowrey v. LowreyMississippi Supreme Court · 2009

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API