Once upon a time courts issued opinions that demonstrated an active realization that in addition to deciding the cases before them they were writing for the future. Such opinions evinced a consciousness that the doctrine of stare decisis demanded that judicial opinions, particularly those from appellate courts, must yield reasoning as well as a result, must enunciate principles as well as render a final work product. It was not enough to say “the plaintiff wins.” It was essential that the courts say “the plaintiff wins because.”
If future courts are to apply the decisions of today as the precedent of tomorrow, it is essential that those decisions establish and explain the principles which are their foundation. Two recent decisions from the Court of Appeals raise the question of whether the equitable distribution law—as judicially developed—is increasingly a disconnected series of results or products unanchored to well-established underlying principles.
Equitable Recoupment
