Judith G. Abrams v. Sailboat Cutter, "Slow Dancer," Her Engines, Equipment, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., and Benjamin M. Abrams

Ninth Circuit

Judith G. Abrams v. Sailboat Cutter, "Slow Dancer," Her Engines, Equipment, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., and Benjamin M. Abrams

700 F.2d 569, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30017

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1983

Docket82-4279

StatusPublished

This text of 700 F.2d 569 (Judith G. Abrams v. Sailboat Cutter, "Slow Dancer," Her Engines, Equipment, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., and Benjamin M. Abrams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Judith G. Abrams v. Sailboat Cutter, "Slow Dancer," Her Engines, Equipment, Apparel, Furniture, Etc., and Benjamin M. Abrams, 700 F.2d 569, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30017 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the action brought by plaintiff below for rents and profits from the use of a sailboat. The action was based upon an alleged property interest in the vessel pursuant to a divorce decree entered by the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

At the time of the decree the parties were residents of the Trust Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. The High Court entered its decree before the date on which its jurisdiction was transferred to the courts *570 of the newly constituted Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (The transfer of jurisdiction from the courts of the Trust Territory to the courts of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was accomplished under the Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, Schedule on Transitional Matters, Section 4, and 48 U.S.C. § 1694.) After the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction, however, the plaintiff below moved the High Court to amend or modify the decree to clarify the nature of her property interest in the sailboat. The High Court declined to modify or amend the decree, but did issue an order of clarification. The clarification was substantially adverse to the position the plaintiff presented in the district court, and in the proceeding below she sought to avoid its consequences. The district court, however, relied upon the clarification to grant summary judgment based upon collateral estoppel. We think such reliance was correct, and we affirm.

Having properly assumed jurisdiction over the original cause of action for divorce, the High Court retained jurisdiction for purposes of amending or clarifying its prior order, even though original jurisdiction over such actions had been transferred to the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. The district court properly relied upon the High Court’s clarification in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, particularly where the clarification was made at her instance.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the action brought by plaintiff below for rents and profits from the use of a sailboat. The action was based upon an alleged property interest in the vessel pursuant to a divorce decree entered by the High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

At the time of the decree the parties were residents of the Trust Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. The High Court entered its decree before the date on which its jurisdiction was transferred to the courts *570 of the newly constituted Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (The transfer of jurisdiction from the courts of the Trust Territory to the courts of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands was accomplished under the Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, Schedule on Transitional Matters, Section 4, and 48 U.S.C. § 1694.) After the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction, however, the plaintiff below moved the High Court to amend or modify the decree to clarify the nature of her property interest in the sailboat. The High Court declined to modify or amend the decree, but did issue an order of clarification. The clarification was substantially adverse to the position the plaintiff presented in the district court, and in the proceeding below she sought to avoid its consequences. The district court, however, relied upon the clarification to grant summary judgment based upon collateral estoppel. We think such reliance was correct, and we affirm.

Having properly assumed jurisdiction over the original cause of action for divorce, the High Court retained jurisdiction for purposes of amending or clarifying its prior order, even though original jurisdiction over such actions had been transferred to the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. The district court properly relied upon the High Court’s clarification in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, particularly where the clarification was made at her instance.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 F.2d 569, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judith-g-abrams-v-sailboat-cutter-slow-dancer-her-engines-equipment-ca9-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack