ROSLYN S. FINSTON
v.
ALBERT FINSTON
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.
In a divorce case, the husband sought a supplementary decree to require the wife to release insurance beneficiary rights, waive tax refund rights, and account for personal property. The Florida Supreme Court held that these property rights were already adjudicated in the original divorce decree, making res adjudicata an appropriate defense and barring the supplementary petition.
The property rights at issue in the supplementary petition were adjudicated in the original divorce decree, and res adjudicata properly bars any subsequent action to determine those same property rights. The trial court erred in overruling the motion to dismiss based on res adjudicata.
“a final decree in a equity suit settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights”
Establishes the core principle that res adjudicata bars subsequent litigation over property rights already adjudicated in a final decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoslyn and Albert Finston were divorced on March 30, 1948, with their property rights adjudicated in the divorce decree. In August 1948, Albert filed …
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit brought for that purpose the parties to this cause were divorced and property rights at issue between them were adjudicated March 30, 1948. Finston v. Finston, 34 So. (2nd) 745, not yet reported in Florida Reports.
In August 1948, respondent filed a petition for supplementary final decree in the same cause, wherein he seeks to require petitioner to release her rights as beneficiary in certain insurance policies upon respondent’s life, to execute a waiver of her right in a tax refund of approximately $8000.00 which the United States Government has credited to her, and further require her to account for the disposition of certain personal property, household furnishings and books which had been in storage for several years. A motion to dismiss, the petition on the ground of res adjudicata was overruled. That order is here for review under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court.
The primary point for determination is whether or not the property rights which respondent seeks to bring in issue in this case were adjudicated in Finston v. Finston, 34 So. (2nd) 745, 160 Fla. 343.
*937We think this question requires an affirmative answer. The rule seems well settled that a final decree in a equity suit settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights. Knabb v. Duner, et al., 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456; Town of Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 So. 279; Zellner v. Zellner, 155 Kan. 530, 127 P. (2nd) 428. See also Section 63.35, Florida Statutes 1941, requiring counterclaims to be set up in the original suit. It further appears from the pleadings in the main suit that the property rights in question were before the Court when the final decree was entered and were adjudicated, so the doctrine of res adjudicata was a proper defense to raise here and should have been permitted.
Respondent contends that since the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction of the cause “for the purpose of making such further orders herein as may be found necessary to carry out the purposes and objects of the decree,” he purposely reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate property and other rights that may arise in connection with the case.
The only effect of reserving jurisdiction in this manner is to promulgate such orders as are necessary to effectuate the judgment but this does not make it any less a final judgment. The application of any other principle would mean that there would be no end to litigation. Our statute Section 63.35, Florida Statutes 1941, relating to compulsory counter-claims in equity contemplates the course that was pursued in the main case.
Respondent also contends that petitioner confuses the rule of res adjudicata with the doctrine of “law of the case.” The doctrine, law of the case, may be invoked by either party as to such questions as were actually considered and decided on the first appeal, while the doctrine res adjudicata means that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction directly rendered upon a particular issue, is conclusive as to the parties and the issue decided in the same or any other controversy.
*938Inspection of these doctrines discloses that “law of the case” is a limited application of the doctrine of res adjudicata. Some of the courts so hold but we think the question hére was ruled by res adjudicata. It follows that the trial court was in error in overruling the motion to dismiss.
The application of petitioner to require respondent to provide her with attorney’s fees has been considered but it seems that this application should be denied on authority of Vinson v. Vinson, 139 Fla. 146, 190 So. 454.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment appealed from is quashed.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (61 total)
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)…e case doctrine is limited to questions of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal, U.S. Concrete was consistent with prior cases from this Court. See, e.g., Gheene, 384 So. 2d at 28; Strazzulla, 177 So. 2d at 3; Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423, 424 (1948). Additionally, the law of the case doctrine may foreclose subsequent consideration of issues implicitly addressed or necessarily considered by the appellate court’s decision. See Dade County Classroom Teachers’ Ass’n v. Ru…
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…fully and succinctly in Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979): Ordinarily a court has no jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in the judgment of dissolution. Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423 (1948); Simon v. Simon, 293 So. 2d 780 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined later when jurisdiction to do so has been reserved. Galbut v. Garfinkl, 340 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976); Hyman v. Hym…
-
Davis v. Rosman Charles Dieujuste, 496 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1986)…roperty rights as between the marital partners and evolving during a marriage are finally settled by a judgment of dissolution of marriage under any and all circumstances.” 400 So. 2d at 982. Relying on this Court’s decisions in Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1948) and Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1954), the district court below concluded that such rights are finally settled upon dissolution. The district court held “res judicata constitutes a complete defense to the claim of…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 61 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town of Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350 (Fla. 1936)
- Vinson v. Aldine Vinson, 139 Fla. 146 (Fla. 1939)
- Lucius Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1940)
- Finston v. Roslyn S. Finston, 160 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1948)
- Cooper v. Phillips Plumbing Co., 160 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1948)
- Sydney Robinson v. Copeland, 160 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1948)