Ramsdell v. Worden
Annotate this CaseOn appeal to the Supreme Court, Dana Ramsdell contends that a provision in his 2006 divorce decree is ambiguous. While his divorce petition was pending, Mr. Ramsdell won a personal injury lawsuit. Under the terms of the divorce decree, Ms. Worden would receive twenty percent of the “potential inchoate claim” from the personal injury lawsuit. Arguing that the term “inchoate claim” was ambiguous, Mr. Ramsdell petitioned the district court for reconsideration of the divorce court’s award to his ex-wife, money from his personal injury suit. The district court affirmed the award. The Supreme Court, finding no error in the lower courts’ interpretation of the divorce judgment or its calculation of the money she received, affirmed the order lower court’s decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.