 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Swanson v. Swanson6/30/2000
discretionary authority to reopen the issue before a final judgment had been entered, and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See id. Davison stands only for the proposition that a court has discretion to reopen an issue before a judgment has been entered.
In this case, however, the trial court had entered a final judgment for the purposes of appealability under I.R.C.P. 83(a), and the subsequent appeal had been prosecuted before the district court, before the motion to reopen the issue was made. Since this case involves an appeal and subsequent remand, the "law of the case" doctrine binds the lower court to follow the law as established during the appeal, and therefore precludes reopening any issues that were raised on appeal and passed upon by the appellate court. See Suitts, 110 Idaho at 15, 713 P.2d at 1380; Insurance Associates, 116 Idaho at 950-51, 782 P.2d at 1232-33; Creem, 58 Idaho at 352, 74 P.2d at 703; Wulff, 123 Idaho at 568, 850 P.2d at 217; Frazier, 118 Idaho at 106, 794 P.2d at 1162.
The trial court was aware that reopening the characterization issue under the circumstances of this case would be unusual, at best: " bsent fraud, the Court is not aware of authority which permits retrial of issues after judgment, appeal and remand based upon conduct occurring after the judgment and appeal . . . . To the extent that a court has discretionary power to re-open the trial record under the circumstances existing in this case, I decline to exercise it for several reasons." The trial court was not persuaded that the representations of the parties in the federal tax court proceedings justified the non-application of the "law of the case" doctrine. We therefore hold that the trial court correctly refused to reopen the characterization issue.
B. It Is Unnecessary To Determine Whether The Trial Court Erred In Finding That The M-K Settlement Proceeds Were Community Property.
Since we hold that the law of the case doctrine precludes reopening the characterization issue, it is unnecessary to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling the M-K settlement proceeds were community property.
C. The Trial Court Did Not Err In Declining To Reopen The Reimbursement Issue.
The trial court ruled that George was required to reimburse the community for the expenditure of community funds used to pay the capital gains tax on the sale of George's M-K stock. The trial court also required George to reimburse the community for funds used to repay the loan for the Vista Property purchase. George appealed this ruling to the district court.
In June 1995, after the district court issued its first appellate decision, this Court released its opinion in Bliss v. Bliss, 127 Idaho 170, 898 P.2d 1081 (1995). In Bliss, the Court held that the community is not entitled to reimbursement if the party seeking reimbursement cannot show that community funds were used to enhance the value of the other party's separate property. See id. at 173, 898 P.2d at 1084. On remand, George argued that the community was not entitled to reimbursement under the "new" rule set forth in Bliss, and requested that the issue be reheard and that the Bliss rule be applied. The trial court declined to reopen the issue, observing that "the Bliss case did not fundamentally change Idaho law regarding reimbursement claims made by spouses on behalf of the community." The trial court then ruled that since George did not appeal the issue after the first appeal to the district court, the district court's decision was binding as "the law of the case." The trial court also observed that it was not certain whether Bliss, to the extent it changed Idaho law concerning rei
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|