Estoppel By Acceptance Of Benefits

22 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• McPHEE v. State
  254 So. 2d 406· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-11-16 ·cited 94×
  Bruce Merrill McPhee was convicted of illegally possessing LSD after the state withdrew its charge of illegal sale. McPhee had moved to compel the state to elect between the two counts, arguing that possession was a lesser included offense of sale. The appellate court affirmed th
• Carter v. Carter
  141 So. 2d 591· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-03-08 ·cited 26×
  Rachel Carter appealed a divorce decree that awarded her substantial property, alimony, and child custody benefits, but challenged only the divorce provision itself. The court dismissed her appeal, holding that by accepting all the benefits flowing from the decree, she was estopp
• Jacquetta W. Hartley v. Hartley
  134 So. 2d 281· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-10-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the wife was not afforded adequate notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the modification of alimony, and the chancellor erred in denying her motion to vacate the order.
• Scocozzo v. Gen. Dev. Corp.
  191 So. 2d 572· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-11-09 ·cited 20×
  The Scozozzos purchased property in Sebastian Highlands Subdivision based on alleged representations that Collier Creek would be developed into a navigable waterway connecting to the Sebastian River and ocean. When the creek remained landlocked and unusable for boating, they soug
• In re Elec. Power & Light Corp.
  176 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1949-08-09 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's order enforcing the SEC's plan of dissolution, finding the plan fair and equitable and properly approved.
• Davies v. Lahann
  145 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1944-11-10 ·cited 18×
  A surety bond conditioned on the performance of a primary contract is unenforceable if the primary contract was never validly executed by the parties involved.
• Bennett Stewart Fort v. Fort
  167 So. 2d 315· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-09-17 ·cited 16×
  A divorced wife appealed a post-decretal order reducing her alimony from $500 to $400 per month, but the court dismissed the appeal on estoppel grounds because she accepted the reduced alimony payments after the order was entered. The court held that accepting the benefits of a d
• Fintak v. Fintak
  120 So. 3d 177· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-08-23 ·cited 12×
  Shirley Fintak, as personal representative of her deceased husband Edmund's estate, appealed summary judgment dismissing her claims that Edmund's self-settled irrevocable trust was invalid due to undue influence and lack of capacity. The court held that a settlor of a self-settle
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Hartsfield
  216 So. 2d 61· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that a condemning authority cannot accept payment of a judgment in an eminent domain case as to some claimants while appealing the award to other claimants on the same parcel, because the statutory scheme for allocating compensation makes
• Worthen Bank & Tr. Co. v. The Franklin Life Ins. Co.
  370 F.2d 97· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the assignment of renewal commissions was subject to the insurer's right to deduct the agent's indebtedness, and that equitable subrogation applied to a surety who paid the agent's defalcation.
• Claus v. Claus
  163 So. 2d 26· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-04-14 ·cited 10×
  A wife appealed a divorce decree but accepted alimony payments for several months after the decree was entered. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that voluntary acceptance of benefits under a divorce decree estops a party from appealing to challenge the decree's provisions,
• Kisz v. Massry
  426 So. 2d 1009· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-01-12 ·cited 7×
  In this foreclosure case, the trial court applied a 20-year statute of limitations to appellants' mortgage obligation, rejecting their argument for a 5-year limitation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that appellants were estopped from challenging the judgment on appeal bec
• Frauken Elizabeth Brackin v. Brackin
  167 So. 2d 604· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-09-17 ·cited 6×
  A divorced wife appealed a divorce decree but accepted alimony payments from her ex-husband pending appeal without following the required procedural rules. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that her acceptance of the lump sum alimony award estopped her from maintaining the
• Viviana Santana v. Miller
  314 So. 3d 346· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for the employer, ruling that the employee was bound by a general release she signed upon termination. The court found the release was clear and unambiguous, and the employee's arguments against its validity were unpersuasive under
• E. F. Corp. v. Arvel C. Smith in Bankr. for Rosen Oil Corp.
  496 F.2d 826· 10th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claim for voluntary personal services rendered within four months of bankruptcy cannot relate back to an earlier transaction for secured status, as value is only given when the services are performed.
• Hines v. Hines
  177 So. 2d 670· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-07-22 ·cited 4×
  In this Florida divorce appeal, the lower court awarded alimony and child support to appellant Louise Hines. However, because Hines accepted the full benefits of the divorce decree while appealing its terms without complying with Florida Appellate Rule 3.8(b), the appellate court
• Kantor v. Am. & Foreign Power Co., Inc.
  197 F.2d 307· 1st Cir.· 1952-06-23 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of the reorganization plan, finding the Commission's allocations fair and equitable and supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed one appeal due to acceptance of plan benefits.
• Spanel v. Berkman
  171 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-20 ·cited 4×
  A litigant who accepts a substantial benefit from a judgment is estopped from appealing other portions of that judgment, as the accepted benefit was contingent upon the judgment's overall outcome.
• Chavez v. Bonnie Tile Corp. & Summit Holdings
  959 So. 2d 1268· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-07-06 ·cited 2×
  A party who accepts the benefits of a settlement order is estopped from appealing that order.
• Shirley v. Maxicare Tex., Inc.
  921 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-07 ·cited 2×
  A federal court lacking subject matter jurisdiction cannot order arbitration or confirm an arbitration award, and a party does not waive this challenge by accepting benefits of the award.
• In re Est. of Dorothy H. Burroughs v. Am. Sec. & Tr. Co.
  475 F.2d 370· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a party accepting benefits under a will is generally precluded from challenging the will's validity, absent fraud or misrepresentation.
• Scocozzo v. Gen. Dev. Corp.
  25 Fla. Supp. 126· Indian River Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1965-06-15
  Homebuyers from New York purchased a waterfront lot and home in Sebastian Highlands Subdivision in Florida, allegedly based on representations that Collier Creek would be extended and made navigable to the Sebastian River. The trial court dismissed their complaint for rescission