JOSEPH M. SAUCER, ET AL.,
v.
CHRIST EFSTATHION, AS EXECUTOR, ETC., ET AL.
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.
This case concerns whether a declaratory decree determining parties' homestead property ownership and entitlement to rents since a decedent's death becomes the unchangeable law of the case, or whether a trial court may later interpret and limit the decree's application when computing actual rents owed.
The lower court did not alter the law of the case improperly. Although the plaintiffs' rights accrued on March 14, 1943, those rights were not judicially determined or established until entry of the June 14, 1946 decree. The trial court was merely construing or interpreting the June 14, 1946 decree rather than changing the law of the case. Judgments and decrees must be construed with reference to the subject matter before the court pronouncing them.
“It is true that the rights of the plaintiffs accrued on the death of Martha Saucer on March 14, 1943, but the rights of the plaintiffs were not judicially determined or established until the entry of the final decree dated June 14, 1946.”
Establishes the critical distinction between when rights arise in fact versus when they are judicially established through a decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartha Saucer died on March 14, 1943. On June 14, 1946, the Circuit Court entered a declaratory decree awarding Joseph M. Saucer and Jamily Mallen imm…
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 Petition For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
On June 14, 1946, the Circuit Court of Putnam County, Florida, in the case at bar, enered a declaratory decree and in part held that Joheph M. Saucer and Jamily Mallen were entitled to the immediate possession of described homestead property, with the rents, issues and profits derived or received therefrom, or the value thereof, since the death of Marti Ellis Saucer on March 14, 1943, and the defendants were required to surrender the immediate possession of the described home*293stead property and make an accounting to the Court for rents, issues and profits derived or received therefrom. The decree on appeal was affirmed by this Court. See Efstathion v. Saucer, 158 Fla. 422, 29 So. (2nd) 304.
Counsel for plaintiffs below, on April 28, 1947, after our mandate went down, filed in the cause a petition for an accounting in which it was contended that they were entitled to rents after March 14,1943, the date of Martha Saucer’s death, until March 1,1947, in the total sum of $1,080.00. On August 13, 1947, an order was entered allowing rents from the date of the entry of the declaratory decree on June 14, 1946, until March 1, 1947, in the total sum of $191.25, and disallowed the claim for rents from March 14, 1943, until June 14, 1946. Plaintiffs appealed.
The following question is posed for adjudication: Does not the declaratory decree of the Circuit Court, judicially determining the appellants to be owners in fee simple of the homestead property involved, and of 2/3 interest in the corner-stone involved, since March 14, 1943, and declaring .them entitled to the rents, issues and profits derived by the appellees or the value thereof, since said date, when fully affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal, become the law of the case, which the lower court in subsequent proceedings may not alter, change or modify?
It is the contention of counsel for appellants that the law of the case was established on the former appeal and the Chancellor below was without authority to alter or change the law of the case. Numerous authorities from this court are cited to sustain this view. We are in full accord with the authorities cited and relied upon, but we are not fully convinced that they are here controlling. The Chancellor below, when entering the order challenged on this appeal, was doing nothing more or less than construing or interpreting the decree by him entered in this cause under date of June 14, 1946. It is true that the rights of the plaintiffs accrued on the death of Martha Saucer on March 14, 1943, but the rights of the plaintiffs were not judicially determined or established until the entry of the final decree dated June 14, 1946.
*294In the case of Atkinson v. Schilman, 60 Fla. 301, 53 So. 844, we held that judgments and decrees are to be construed with reference to the subject matter before the Court pronouncing them. On appeal here the burden of establishing error rests on the one asserting it. It is our view and conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to carry the burden cast upon them by law.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., and SEBRING, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 46 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1950)…to the subject matter before the Court pronouncing them. The language appearing in the final decree should be construed so as to make it correct and proper with reference to the pleadings and entire proceedings in the case. See Saucer v. Efstathion, 160 Fla. 292, 34 So. 2d 435; Atkinson v. Schilman, 60 Fla. 301, 53 So. 844, 56 So. 274; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 So. 642; Pearson v. Helvenston, 50 Fla. 590, 39 So. 695; Kooman's Florida Chancery Practice, pages 356-7, par. 158. It is now necessary to…
-
TIG Romspen US Master Mortg., LP v. Blue Lagoon Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…its Answer Brief, the Association recognizes that the injunction “interprets the easement . . . .” Answer Br. at 35. Because the Agreed Permanent Injunction enforces the Easement, it must be interpreted in that context. See Saucer v. Efstathion, 34 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 1948) (“[J]udgments and decrees are to be construed with reference to the subject matter before the Court pronouncing them.”). Consequently, the Agreed Permanent Injunction enforcing the Easement should be given the same interpretation a…
-
7 at Blue Lagoon (1), LLC v. Blue Lagoon Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…its Answer Brief, the Association recognizes that the injunction “interprets the easement . . . .” Answer Br. at 35. Because the Agreed Permanent Injunction enforces the Easement, it must be interpreted in that context. See Saucer v. Efstathion, 34 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 1948) (“[J]udgments and decrees are to be construed with reference to the subject matter before the Court pronouncing them.”). Consequently, the Agreed Permanent Injunction enforcing the Easement should be given the same interpretation a…
Authorities Cited
- Christ Efstathion v. Saucer, 158 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1947)
- Jane Atkinson and Others v. K. F. J. Schilman and Others, 60 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1910)