MARTIN L. GLASSMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEAUVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 appellate court reversed an order denying a motion for a decree on bill and answer, holding that the trial judge erred in believing this procedural mechanism was no longer valid in Florida. The court found the appellant was entitled to a decree because their answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, shifting the burden of proof to the appellee.
Yes, the trial judge erred. The motion for decree on bill and answer is still a valid procedural tool in Florida, and the appellant was entitled to a decree because their answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, placing the burden of proof on the appellee.
“that the former equity practice known as 'motion for decree on bill and answer' no longer obtains in this state”
Describes the trial judge's erroneous conclusion that formed the basis of the order being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought a decree on bill and answer after the appellate court had previously issued an opinion and mandate in the case. The trial judge d…
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.
This interlocutory appeal seeks review of an order denying a motion for decree on bill and answer entered after the opinion and mandate of this court in said cause, reported in 101 So.2d 432.
In entering the order appealed, the trial judge erroneously concluded “that the former equity practice known as ‘motion for decree on bill and answer’ no longer obtains in this state”. Since the decisions of this court in City of Miami v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App. 1957, 96 So.2d 799; Tropicaire Engineering Service Corp. v. Chrysler Airtemp Sales Corporation, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 149, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida cited therein, the question is no longer debatable. Furthermore, the order denying the appellant a decree on bill and answer was clearly erroneous. The appellant’s answer traversed or denied all of the material allegations of the appellee’s complaint. *707The burden of proof being upon the ap-pellee, the conclusion becomes obvious that appellant was entitled to a decree in his favor in this case. Barton v. Horwick, Fla. 1955, 78 So.2d 569.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to enter a decree dismissing the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Miami Transit Co., 96 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Tropicaire Eng'g Serv. Corp. v. Chrysler Airtemp Sales Corp., 97 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Barton v. Horwick, 78 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1955)
- Glassman v. Deauville Enters., Inc., 101 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)