Willett v. Clark

Indiana Court of Appeals

Willett v. Clark

564 N.E.2d 948, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 2, 1991 WL 1527

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 7, 1991

DocketNo. 82A01-8808-CV-273

StatusPublished

This text of 564 N.E.2d 948 (Willett v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willett v. Clark, 564 N.E.2d 948, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 2, 1991 WL 1527 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERTSON, Judge.

In a previous opinion, this court remanded the cause for more complete findings of fact and conclusions of law on the partition of the real and personal property claimed by the parties Those new findings and conclusions were filed in this court on July 11, 1990, however, through a misunderstanding the matter was thought to be suitably resolved between the parties when such was not the case.

Among other things, the cause was remanded for an explanation of the division of two parcels of real estate. That question is now adequately covered in the new findings and conclusions. In our original opinion, we observed that the trial court has great flexibility in fashioning relief in a partition - proceeding. Cummings v. Anderson (1980), 94 Wash.2d 135, 614 P.2d 1283. The trial court in this case has exercised that flexibility in the new conclusions and findings. Based upon the argument presented in their briefs we now conclude that the new judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

BAKER and CHEZEM, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERTSON, Judge.

In a previous opinion, this court remanded the cause for more complete findings of fact and conclusions of law on the partition of the real and personal property claimed by the parties Those new findings and conclusions were filed in this court on July 11, 1990, however, through a misunderstanding the matter was thought to be suitably resolved between the parties when such was not the case.

Among other things, the cause was remanded for an explanation of the division of two parcels of real estate. That question is now adequately covered in the new findings and conclusions. In our original opinion, we observed that the trial court has great flexibility in fashioning relief in a partition - proceeding. Cummings v. Anderson (1980), 94 Wash.2d 135, 614 P.2d 1283. The trial court in this case has exercised that flexibility in the new conclusions and findings. Based upon the argument presented in their briefs we now conclude that the new judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

BAKER and CHEZEM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 N.E.2d 948, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 2, 1991 WL 1527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-v-clark-indctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack