Legal Definitions - acceptance-of-the-benefits rule

The acceptance-of-the-benefits rule is a legal principle that states if a party involved in a lawsuit voluntarily and intentionally accepts any part of the favorable outcome or "benefits" awarded to them by a court's judgment, they generally lose their right to appeal that judgment. In essence, a party cannot simultaneously accept the positive aspects of a court's decision while also challenging its validity through an appeal.

Here are some examples to illustrate this rule:

• Monetary Award in a Contract Dispute:

  Imagine a small business owner sues a supplier for breach of contract, seeking $100,000 in damages. The court reviews the evidence and awards the business owner $60,000, finding that only a portion of the claimed damages were proven. Although the business owner is disappointed not to receive the full amount, they decide to deposit the $60,000 check issued by the supplier (as ordered by the court) into their business account.

  How it illustrates the rule: By voluntarily accepting and using the $60,000, the business owner has accepted a direct financial benefit of the judgment. Under the acceptance-of-the-benefits rule, they would likely be prevented from appealing the judgment to try and get the remaining $40,000, as they have already acknowledged and benefited from the court's decision.

• Property Division in a Divorce Case:

  In a divorce proceeding, a court issues a judgment that divides the marital assets between the two spouses. One spouse is awarded ownership of a specific vacation home, while the other spouse receives other assets of equivalent value. The spouse awarded the vacation home immediately takes possession, changes the locks, and begins making plans to use or rent out the property.

  How it illustrates the rule: By taking control and exercising ownership over the vacation home, the spouse has voluntarily accepted a significant benefit of the divorce judgment. This action would typically preclude them from later appealing the judgment, for instance, to argue that the overall property division was unfair or that they should have received a different asset, because they have already acted on and benefited from the court's ruling.

• Reinstatement in an Employment Lawsuit:

  An employee sues their former employer for wrongful termination. The court rules in favor of the employee, ordering their reinstatement to their previous position and awarding a specific amount of back pay. The employee accepts the offer of reinstatement, returns to work, and receives the back pay as ordered by the court.

  How it illustrates the rule: By returning to work and accepting the back pay, the employee has voluntarily accepted the primary benefits of the court's judgment. Consequently, they would generally lose the right to appeal the judgment, for example, to argue that they should have received a larger monetary settlement instead of reinstatement, as they have already embraced and acted upon the relief provided by the court.