Arbitral tribunals may divide the proceedings into separate phases in cases involving complex situations in order to allow a decision to be taken on one phase before dealing with issues relevant to another phase (e.g. jurisdiction, substance, damages), in the interest of procedural economy and where such a decision would not prejudge a subsequent decision. The rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)[2] allow for branching, while the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) do not solve the problem. [3] States have had different views on the range in the past, but most state laws do not address the issue. Alaska allows the courts, in certain circumstances, to divide the property of the parties « at any time after judgment. » Alaska Stat. 25.24.155(b) and Alaska Stat. 25.24.160 (Michie 1996). Michigan Law, Mich. Ct. R.

3.211(B)(3) (1998) states that a divorce decree must contain a provision on the property rights of the parties. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in Frankel v. Frankel, 274 N.J. Super. 585, 644 A.2d 1132 (App. Div. 1994), prohibits forking except in the most unusual and mitigating circumstances. Some states exclude branching by law. The Nebraska Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that all issues at the time of dissolution and in Humphrey v. Humphrey, 214 Neb. 664, 340 N.W.2d 381 (1983), concluded: « The personal convenience that a court may grant to the parties by granting immediate dissolution while retaining jurisdiction over the property cannot be equal to the difficulties and problems to which the court of first instance exposes litigants. » The Arizona Supreme Court, in Porter v.

Gut von Pigg, 175 Ariz. 303, 856 p.2d 796 (1993), concluded that the ramification for « resolving the issues of marriage dissolution and distribution of wealth is a mistake, » and in Brighton v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz. App. 291, 526 P.2d 1089 (1974) that bifurcation would encourage rather than deter litigation. A Texas Court of Appeals, Adam v. Stewart, 552 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977), disapproved of the branch. The Third Division of the Appeals Division in New York, Busa v. Busa, 196 A.D.2d 267, 609 N.Y.S.2d 452 (1994), Sullivan v.

Sullivan, 174 A.D.2d 862, 571 N.Y.S.2d 154 (1991), and Garcia v. Garcia, 178 A.D.2d 683, 577 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1991), held that a divorce decree is not binding and has no legal effect if it includes a range and does not grant equitable distribution at the time of dissolution, while the fourth division, Zack v. Zack, 183 A.D.2d 382, 590 N.Y.S.2d 632 (1992), dismissed these decisions, seconded by Johnson, 172 Misc. 2d 684, 658 N.Y.S.2d 780 (Sup. Ct. 1997). [1] In divorce cases, some states allow branching, which makes it possible to conclude a divorce case and deal with certain aspects, such as property, after dissolution. Some states allow branching, others do not, and some state laws do not address the issue.

The decision on responsibility at the first trial will also provide a clearer perspective on the actual responsibility of an accused. In the car accident example, suppose the jury holds the defendant 70% responsible. The plaintiff therefore by definition became 30% responsible for the accident. Before the damages process, the plaintiff now knows that each arbitration award of this jury must be reduced by 30%. For example, if the jury awards the plaintiff $100,000, the arbitration award is reduced by 30%, which means that the plaintiff will actually recover $70,000 (excluding attorneys` fees). If you have this information before entering the damages phase, both parties can weigh their options in a settlement attempt before betting on a second lawsuit. If liability has been successfully proven, which means that the percentage of the defendant`s fault is high, the parties will often reach an agreement before the damages process actually takes place. However, if a damages proceeding were to take place, much of the pressure comes from the plaintiff, as the defendant has already been convicted.

[The purpose of the range] is to avoid the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary negotiation of damages issues in cases where the issue of liability against the plaintiff is resolved. At first glance, parties may be concerned about spending money and resources on two studies instead of one. However, hookup can be a good option for both parties from an economic point of view, especially if the issue of liability seems questionable. The ramification of the process saves the cost of capturing and rebutting evidence of damage, which can include the recruitment of experts such as economists, doctors and accident reconstructors and, of course, the preparation time by the respective legal teams. These costs may be unnecessary if the liability obstacle cannot be overcome. Bifurcation usually reduces the time it will take for the first trial, as evidence of harm does not need to be presented (and is in fact prohibited), saving resources and money. It is conceivable that the costs of the two smaller studies will end up being the same or even lower than those of a longer study. In arbitration, bifurcation can be used to overcome certain problems that could otherwise cripple negotiations by concluding certain points that have been agreed, while working on a solution to any problem that triggered the need for bifurcation. Bifurcation is a unique tool that is often ignored by clients and lawyers.

This can save money and at the same time take a case to court. Bifurcation requires a thorough understanding of a case`s strengths and weaknesses. Even if the bifurcation option is not chosen, the lawyer and the client are in a better position for a possible procedure after taking the time to assess their case. For this reason, lawyers and clients would do well to consider whether forking is the right course of action. If the decision of the court or the judgment of the jury on the question of liability is directed against a party to whom liability is to be imposed, or if the decision of the court or the judgment of the jury on another matter or part thereof so heard does not result in a judgment under this chapter, the hearing on the other questions or parts thereof shall take place at that time, and in the case of a jury hearing before the same or another jury, ordered by the court either ex officio or at the request of a party, and the judgment shall be recorded in the same manner and with the same effect as if all the questions on the merits had been heard at the same time.