JENNIE RUBIN (MRS. I. H. RUBIN) AND I. H. RUBIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ABRAHAM WOLFSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree in a complex property dispute between the Rubins and Wolfson, while requiring amendments regarding cost allocation and property description. The case involved a master's appointment and complicated factual circumstances that required meticulous adherence to prior legal pronouncements.
The decree was affirmed with modifications: the supplemental master's compensation of $500 should be divided equally between the appellants and appellee (one-half by each), consistent with how prior costs had been shared, and the decree must be amended to include the legal description of the property in question.
“the chancellor meticulously followed the prior adjudications and arrived at a just conclusion in litigation that had plainly got into a curious tangle”
Establishes the court's approval of the lower court's careful adherence to precedent and its overall judgment, despite requiring specific modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between the appellants (Jennie Rubin and I. H. Rubin) and the appellee (Abraham Wolfson) regarding property or contractual…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
[*330] THOMAS, Justice.
We have carefully reviewed this case and have examined the opinion rendered in the former appeal, Wolfson v. Rubin, Fla., 52 So. 2d 344. We conclude that the chancellor meticulously followed the prior adjudications and arrived at a just conclusion in litigation that had plainly got into a curious tangle.
So the decree is affirmed' except in two relatively unimportant particulars.
It appears from the master’s report that the appellants and the appellee had shared equally the master’s fee up to the time the report was filed and that the master asked for an additional fee of $750 which he recommended be borne equally by the parties-plaintiff and the party-defendant.
In the decree the chancellor remarked that the “parties [had] paid their accountants and the reporter and part of the Master’s compensation, dividing that expense * * He then decreed that the master should receive additional compensation of $500 and ordered the appellants to pay it. We have not found in the record the stipulation for division of costs to which the appellants refer in their brief, but from the procedure we have mentioned, we are convinced that the supplemental compensation should be paid as the original payment to the master, as well as other costs and expenses, had been paid, i. e., one-half by appellants and one-half by appellee.
The appellánts’ position that the decree should contain a description of the property in question seems sound.
Therefore, the decree is affirmed with directions to amend it to provide that one-.half of the supplemental compensation of the master be paid by the appellants and one-half by the appellee, and to incorporate .the legal description of the property.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
'TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rubin v. Kapell, 105 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…d, Abraham Wolfson to Spinoza Forum Foundation (Exhibit B-7) 1954 — August 19 Assignment of mortgage (Exhibits 1 and 2) Frances K. and George C. Powell to Edith Kapell (Exhibit 9) 1955 — December 15 Final decree in Rubin v. Wolfson, Fla., affirmed 98 So. 2d 329 (Exhibit 11) ; see, also, Fla., 52 So. 2d 344 The appellants derived their title to the •premises from a deed made pursuant to a ■decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County in a suit brought by them against Abraham Wolfson. By this decree the defen…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Wolfson v. Rubin, 52 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1951)