Also known as: ius provocationis · right of appeal · provocatio
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An appellate principle in family law that treats a decree of dissolution as final for remarriage purposes upon entry when the appeal does not contest the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. The principle separates the marital status determination from ancillary matters such as property division. It permits either party to remarry without awaiting resolution of the appeal.
Jonathan Jaffe obtained a dissolution decree that found his marriage to Jacob Jennings irretrievably broken and dissolved the marriage while reserving property issues. Jacob appealed only the property division. Three weeks later Jonathan married Jasmine Jordan. The new marriage is valid because the appeal left the dissolution finding undisturbed.
Jose Jimenez received a dissolution decree that expressly dissolved his marriage to Julia Jensen. Julia appealed solely the valuation of business assets. Jose then married Jason Jung. The marriage stands because the appeal did not challenge the irretrievably broken finding.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jasmine Jordan obtained a decree dissolving her marriage to Jonathan Jaffe while reserving support calculations. Jonathan appealed only the support award. Jasmine married Jacob Jennings the next month. The second marriage is effective under the finality rule for the dissolution provision.
Jason Jung secured a dissolution decree that ended his marriage to Jose Jimenez and reserved division of retirement accounts. Jose appealed only the retirement division. Jason married Julia Jensen within the appeal period. The marriage is valid because the dissolution finding remained final.
Jacob Jennings received a decree dissolving his marriage to Jasmine Jordan while holding property issues open. Jasmine appealed solely the property rulings. Jacob married Jonathan Jaffe three weeks later. The marriage takes effect immediately under the finality principle.
Julia Jensen obtained a dissolution decree that found her marriage to Jason Jung irretrievably broken and reserved custody details. Jason appealed only custody. Julia married Jose Jimenez the following month. The marriage is valid because the appeal did not touch the dissolution finding.
An appeal prevents finality only when it challenges the finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. An appeal limited to property division or other ancillary issues leaves the dissolution provision final upon entry.
Supporting sources
Yes. The statute expressly authorizes either party to remarry pending appeal when the appeal does not contest the irretrievably broken finding. The new marriage remains valid even if the appeal later alters property awards.
Supporting sources
No. Courts look to the substantive grounds stated in the notice. When those grounds are confined to property or financial issues and do not challenge the dissolution finding, the decree remains final for remarriage purposes.
Supporting sources
The designations are valid. Once the dissolution is final for marital-status purposes, a party may change beneficiaries on insurance and retirement accounts without regard to the unresolved property appeal.
Supporting sources
…and this determination is by § 6i made subject to judicial review on questions of law by the state Superior Court, with further right of appeal in the state Supreme Court as in other civil cases. In this case notice of assessment for the years in question was personally served upon a sales solicitor employed by appellant in the…