Burnham v. Burnham
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
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
- Ferguson v. FergusonMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
- Armstrong v. ArmstrongMississippi Supreme Court · 1993
- Brooks v. BrooksMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
- Omnibank of Mantee v. United Southern BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Lowrey v. LowreyMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.