WALTER LEWIS MOORHEAD
v.
ELEANOR HUTCHINSON MOORHEAD
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.
Walter Lewis Moorhead petitioned for certiorari to review the chancellor's denial of his motion to dismiss his wife Eleanor's alimony petition and the subsequent appointment of a special master. The court denied the petition, holding that the chancellor properly found the res judicata defense insufficiently pleaded and that referring the case to a master was not reversible error.
The court denied certiorari, holding that the res judicata defense was not pleaded with sufficient particularity to enable the issue to be determined on a motion to dismiss. While it would have been appropriate to determine the res judicata issue first, referring the case to a master was not reversible error.
“All pleadings, evidence and other matters not essential to the decision of said question shall be omitted. Formal parts of all exhibits and more than one copy of any document, shall be excluded.”
The court's statement of the Florida Supreme Court Rule 11 requiring abbreviated records on appeal, establishing that non-essential materials must be omitted under penalty of costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband filed a motion to dismiss the wife's bill for alimony, claiming the matter had been previously decided adversely to the plaintiff in anoth…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a cause wherein there is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the chancellor denying a motion to dismiss and appointing a special master to inquire as to the ability of the husband to pay alimony.
The petition fails to give one single citation to the record and particularly fails to state where in the said record the order of which he complains may be found; and the record likewise is deficient in not having an index.
The record in this case is comparatively small and very neatly prepared except for the want of an index but yet consisting of fifteen items when only six of them are material to the petition for certiorari to-wit: (1) the original bill, (2) answer or plea, (3) motion to dismiss, (4) amendment of the bill, (5) motion for order of reference, (6) order on motion to dismiss and of reference to a master.
The record should have omitted the following: (1) notice of application for an order of reference, (2) affidavit of proof of service, (3) motion to dismiss, (4) first answer or plea filed, (5) summons, (6) sheriff’s return, (7) notice of hearing seeking leave to amend bill, and (8) order granting leave to amend bill. At most, they should have only been recited.
We feel, it apropriate to warn the attorneys and the courts reporters and others who prepare records-on-appeal that it is imperative that records presented to this Court shall be governed by the rule to-wit:
“. . . All pleadings, evidence and other matters not essential to the decision of said question shall be omitted. Formal parts of all exhibits and more than one copy of any document, shall be excluded. Documents shall be abridged by omitting all irrelevant and formal parts.
(b) Penalty. Failure on the part of counsel or others to abbreviate the record on appeal as thus required will sub*472ject them to the payment of such costs as this Court may deem proper to impose.”
Rules Supreme Court of Florida Rule 11, (2) (a), (b).
The rule is applicable to court reporters and clerks as well as attorneys and the purpose for which a record is made should govern the attorneys and the court reporter and others preparing the record. It is a simple matter for the attorney to advise the court reporter and for the court reporter or clerk of the court to inquire of the attorney for directions.
Petitioner complains that the chancellor erred in overruling his motion to dismiss plaintiff’s bill because of a prior decision of the same controversy on the merits and adverse to the plaintiff. The bill did make reference to the prior controversy and the adverse decision but same was not pleaded with such sufficient particularity as to enable the issue of res judicata to be determined on a motion to dismiss and in this respect certiorari is denied.
The prior suit is identified in plaintiffs bill but it is not made of part thereof and the chancellor in making his ruling doubtless confined his consideration solely to the contents of the bill.
Petitioner likewise complains that the chancellor erred in referring the cause to a master for a report on the ability of the husband to pay support money after defendant has filed his answer pleading res judicata. This is not essentially error, but it would have been appropriate to have determined the issues of prior adjudication first or else likewise have referred this, also, to the master. Certiorari on this is also denied.
Petitioner seems to have proceeded upon the hypothesis that the matter of res judicata has been determined against him by virtue of the chancellor’s orders denying motion to dismiss and by his order of reference. We do not so conclude.
The petitioner’s pleading to plaintiff’s bill was styled “Answer or Plea of Res Judicata.” Pleas are abolished (see 63.33 F.S.A.) but the character of a pleading is to be determined by its contents and the title as contained in the cap-ton only goes to the form and in nowise controls. It is a *473maxim that “equity regards the substance rather than the form.”
Certiorari denied.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Circle Fin. Co. v. Peacock, 399 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…. 2d 811 (Fla.1957); Phelps v. Higgins, 120 So. 2d 633 (Fla.2d DCA 1960). Restated, the character of an equitable pleading is determined, not by its title, but by its contents, and by the actual issues in dispute. Moorhead v. Moorhead, 159 Fla. 470, 31 So. 2d 867 (1947); Boyer v. Dye, 51 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1951). Moreover, in equitable actions, it is recognized that the courts have the fullest liberty in molding decrees to the necessity of the action regardless of the prayer. Singer v. Tobin, 201 So. 2d 799 (Fl…
-
Golden v. Davey L. Woodward, Jr., 15 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…e context of his specific pleadings in Count Two of the complaint, Mr. Woodward’s request for an “equitable lien” upon the property reasonably should have put Appellants on notice that a “vendor’s lien” was being requested. See Moorhead v. Moorhead, 159 Fla. 470, 31 So. 2d 867, 868 (1947) (stating that “the character of a pleading is to be determined by its contents”); Peacock, 399 So. 2d at 84. Thus, the trial court did not rule in Appellee’s favor on an issue that had not been adequately pled and litigate…
-
205 Jacksonville, LLC v. A-Affordable AIR, LLC, 16 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…course, the content of a motion not its caption that determines the nature of the motion. See Golden v. Woodward, 15 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (”[T]he character of a pleading is to be determined by its contents”) (quoting Moorhead v. Moorhead, 159 Fla. 470, 31 So. 2d 867, 868 (1947)). While the caption to Jacksonville's pre-judgment motion does state that it is a motion to set aside default "and/or final [*977] judgment,” the motion itself makes no mention of a judgment and requests only that the cler…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence