From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Socha v. Socha

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 23, 1970
176 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Docket No. 5,829.

Decided February 23, 1970. Rehearing denied April 7, 1970.

Appeal from Wayne, Benjamin D. Burdick, J. Submitted Division 1 February 10, 1970, at Detroit. (Docket No. 5,829.) Decided February 23, 1970. Rehearing denied April 7, 1970.

Complaint by Steve Socha against Jean Socha for divorce. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Brennan, for plaintiff.

Victor Targonski, for defendant.

Before: QUINN, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and FITZGERALD, JJ.


Plaintiff appeals from an amended default judgment entered on his motion in the trial court. On appeal, plaintiff raises and briefs four issues as the basis for appellate relief.

A review of the record presented to this Court indicates, at least inferentially, that the amended default judgment appealed from was the result of cooperation, negotiation and participation on the part of counsel for both parties. In our view, plaintiff's present, uncorroborated statement that he moved for entry of that judgment in order to obtain a final reviewable judgment does not overcome the record inference. We are not persuaded that plaintiff is not seeking appellate relief from the relief he sought and consented to in the trial court. This may not be done. Dora v. Lesinski (1958), 351 Mich. 579.

We find it is unnecessary to discuss this case further.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.


Summaries of

Socha v. Socha

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 23, 1970
176 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

Socha v. Socha

Case Details

Full title:SOCHA v. SOCHA

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 23, 1970

Citations

176 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
176 N.W.2d 693

Citing Cases

Hibbard v. Hibbard

Any alleged disorganization or confusion below of which plaintiff complains in this appeal was patently…