Site /
Appeal Procedure
Site.TopicsAppealProcedure History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to output
Deleted lines 36-42:
# [[2018MarylandRand|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
# [[2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
Changed lines 29-30 from:
** [[2016TennesseeRogersGroup|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-tennessee-rogers-group-charging-order.html
to:
** [[2016TennesseeRogersGroup|+]]
Deleted line 36:
Changed line 29 from:
** Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
to:
** [[2016TennesseeRogersGroup|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-tennessee-rogers-group-charging-order.html
Changed lines 38-45 from:
• 2016TennesseeRogersGroup?
• Rand v. Steinberg, 2018 WL 4183449 (Md.Spec.App., Unreported, Aug. 31, 2018).
• 2018MarylandRand? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
• Jack M. Sanders Family Limited Partnership v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable Living Trust, 2014 WL 1603546 (Tex.App.Distr. 1, 2014).
• 2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
to:
# [[2016TennesseeRogersGroup|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-tennessee-rogers-group-charging-order.html
# [[2018MarylandRand|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
# [[2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
# [[2018MarylandRand|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
# [[2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
Changed lines 38-40 from:
Jack M
to:
• Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
• 2016TennesseeRogersGroup? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-tennessee-rogers-group-charging-order.html
• Rand v. Steinberg, 2018 WL 4183449 (Md.Spec.App., Unreported, Aug. 31, 2018).
• 2018MarylandRand? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
• Jack M. Sanders Family Limited Partnership v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable Living Trust, 2014 WL 1603546 (Tex.App.Distr. 1, 2014).
• 2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
• 2016TennesseeRogersGroup? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-tennessee-rogers-group-charging-order.html
• Rand v. Steinberg, 2018 WL 4183449 (Md.Spec.App., Unreported, Aug. 31, 2018).
• 2018MarylandRand? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2018-maryland-rand-charging-order.html
• Jack M. Sanders Family Limited Partnership v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable Living Trust, 2014 WL 1603546 (Tex.App.Distr. 1, 2014).
• 2014TexasSandersFLPNotInterlocutory? https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2014-texas-sanders-flp-not-interlocutory-charging-order.html
Changed line 35 from:
(:pagelist link=Category.Appeal list=normal:)
to:
(:pagelist link=Category.Appeal list=normal fmt=title:)
Changed lines 24-27 from:
(
to:
!!!APPEAL ARTICLES
* [[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2016/05/31/tennessee-charging-order-not-an-appealable-final-judgment-just-yet-in-rogers-group/ | 2016.05.30]] … Tennessee Charging Order Not An Appealable Final Judgment (Just Yet) In Rogers Group
** Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
Added lines 32-37:
!!!APPELLATE PROCEDURE OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.Appeal list=normal:)
----
Deleted lines 38-39:
Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
Changed line 6 from:
[[!Topic]] Appeal
to:
[[!Topic]] Appeal [-TopicsAppealProcedure-]
Changed line 6 from:
[[!Topic]] [[!Appeal]]
to:
[[!Topic]] Appeal
Changed line 26 from:
(:pagelist link=Category.appeal list=normal:)
to:
(:pagelist link=Category.Appeal list=normal:)
Changed line 6 from:
[[!topic]] [[!appeal]]
to:
[[!Topic]] [[!Appeal]]
Changed line 6 from:
[[!appeal]] [[!topic]]
to:
[[!topic]] [[!appeal]]
Changed line 6 from:
[[!appeal]]
to:
[[!appeal]] [[!topic]]
Added line 23:
----
Added lines 26-28:
(:pagelist link=Category.appeal list=normal:)
----
----
Changed lines 1-4 from:
(:title TEXT:)
(:Summary:TEXT:)
(:descriptionTEXT:)
(:keywords charging order,TEXT:)
(:Summary:
(:description
(:keywords charging order,
to:
(:title Appeal Procedure:)
(:Summary: Charging order appeal procedure:)
(:description Charging order appeal procedure:)
(:keywords charging order, appeal, appellate, procedure:)
(:Summary: Charging order appeal procedure:)
(:description Charging order appeal procedure:)
(:keywords charging order, appeal, appellate, procedure:)
Changed line 6 from:
[[!topic]]
to:
[[!appeal]]
Changed lines 8-31 from:
to:
[[<<]]
How appeals of charging orders (and foreclosures thereof) are taken provide a myriad of issues that litigants and the courts have struggled with, including:
1. Whether a charging order is a final appealable order.
2. What is the correct appellate procedure.
3. Whether the entity as a non-party to the case has standing to appeal the order.
The courts have reached conflicting results on whether the charging order is an immediate appealable order. Some courts treat charging orders as final appealable orders. Other courts disagree, and typically rationalize something to the effect that the "final order" will be that which results in the final satisfaction of the judgment, or at least something like that. These courts treat charging orders as in the nature of interlocutory orders, which makes little sense because the judgment has already been entered in the case. Where the courts do not treat charging orders as a final order, any effective appeal of the charging order must be made by an extraordinary writ.
It is suggested that § 503 be amended to provide that a charging order is a final appealable order, and that the parties to the charging order have an immediate appeal as of right. An expanded Comment to this effect will likely be of dubious effect.
Where the charging order affects the entity in some incorrect way, e.g., the court gives the creditor management rights, the entity itself may need to appeal the charging order and this issue should also be considered.
APPELLATE PROCEDURE OPINIONS
Rand v. Steinberg, 2018 WL 4183449 (Md.Spec.App., Unreported, Aug. 31, 2018).
Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
Jack M. Sanders Family Limited Partnership v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable Living Trust, 2014 WL 1603546 (Tex.App.Distr. 1, 2014).
How appeals of charging orders (and foreclosures thereof) are taken provide a myriad of issues that litigants and the courts have struggled with, including:
1. Whether a charging order is a final appealable order.
2. What is the correct appellate procedure.
3. Whether the entity as a non-party to the case has standing to appeal the order.
The courts have reached conflicting results on whether the charging order is an immediate appealable order. Some courts treat charging orders as final appealable orders. Other courts disagree, and typically rationalize something to the effect that the "final order" will be that which results in the final satisfaction of the judgment, or at least something like that. These courts treat charging orders as in the nature of interlocutory orders, which makes little sense because the judgment has already been entered in the case. Where the courts do not treat charging orders as a final order, any effective appeal of the charging order must be made by an extraordinary writ.
It is suggested that § 503 be amended to provide that a charging order is a final appealable order, and that the parties to the charging order have an immediate appeal as of right. An expanded Comment to this effect will likely be of dubious effect.
Where the charging order affects the entity in some incorrect way, e.g., the court gives the creditor management rights, the entity itself may need to appeal the charging order and this issue should also be considered.
APPELLATE PROCEDURE OPINIONS
Rand v. Steinberg, 2018 WL 4183449 (Md.Spec.App., Unreported, Aug. 31, 2018).
Rogers Grp., Inc. v. Gilbert, 2016 WL 2605651 (Tenn.App., 2016).
Jack M. Sanders Family Limited Partnership v. Roger T. Fridholm Revocable Living Trust, 2014 WL 1603546 (Tex.App.Distr. 1, 2014).
Added lines 1-8:
(:title TEXT:)
(:Summary: TEXT:)
(:description TEXT:)
(:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:linebreaks:)
[[!topic]]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
(:Summary: TEXT:)
(:description TEXT:)
(:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:linebreaks:)
[[!topic]]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]