Law Lessons from PATRICK C. CULLY V. KATHLEEN G. CULLY, App. Div., A-4483-05T3, March 10, 2010:

“The doctrine of judicial estoppel operates to ‘bar a party to a legal proceeding from arguing a position inconsistent with one previously asserted.’” Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 385 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting N.M. v. J.G., 255 N.J. Super. 423, 429 (App. Div. 1992)); see Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, v. Steiger, 395 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 2007). This court has recognized that the doctrine should be invoked when “a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, [s]he may not thereafter, simply because h[er] interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice to the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.” Newell v. Hudson, 376 N.J. Super. 29, 38 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689, 15 S. Ct. 555, 558, 39 L. Ed. 578, 584 (1895)). This doctrine should be applied “when a party’s inconsistent behavior will otherwise result in a miscarriage of justice.” Steiger, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 114-15 (quoting Ali v. Rutgers, 166 N.J. 280, 288 (2000)). The doctrine of judicial estoppel “protect[s] the integrity of the judicial process by not permitting a litigant to prevail on an issue and then to seek the reversal of that favorable ruling.” McCurrie v. Town of Kearny, 174 N.J. 523, 534 (2002).

In a similar vein, “[t]he doctrine of invited error operates to bar a disappointed litigant from arguing on appeal that an adverse decision below was the product of error, when that party urged the lower court to adopt the proposition now alleged to be error.” Brett v. Great Am. Recreation. Inc., 144 N.J. 479, 503 (1996). In other words, “[a] party who consents to, acquiesces in, or encourages an error cannot use that error as the basis for an objection on appeal.” Spedick v. Murphy, 266 N.J. Super. 573, 593 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 567 (1993); see also Brett, supra, 144 N.J. at 504 (explaining that the doctrine is “particularly applicable where a party attempts to present a different theory on which to decide the case than the one advocated below”). Fairness and the preservation of the integrity of the litigation process are the guiding principles for this doctrine. Brett, supra, 144 N.J. at 503.

See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin