DOCKERY
v.
DOCKERY
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 court held that the trial court should have more clearly distinguished the interests of an individual from a corporation and that personal obligations should be paid from individual assets.
The case involved a dispute over the distribution of assets between an individual and a corporation, with personal obligations of the individual poten…
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.
The record and the briefs in this cause have been examined and we find no criticism with many of the chancellor's findings. We think he should have more clearly distinguished the interest of Clarence F. Dockery from that of Dockery Building Corporation in the subject matter of the litigation. It is also our view that the personal obligations of Clarence F. Dockery, such as support for his wife and children, alimony, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses should be paid from the assets of Clarence F. Dockery and not from the assets of Dockery Building Corporation.
We are further of the view that the receiver should be required to make the regular accounting specified by the Statute, F.S.A. § 63.74, and that Annabel Dockery should be protected in her rights under the contract with Dockery Building Corporation.
The judgment appealed from is not altogether clear on these points so the cause is reversed with directions accordingly. In other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kramer A. Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…d 836, 837 (Fla.1973) (same); Wags Transp. Sys., Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla.1956) (holding that nonparties may intervene in order to appeal after judgment has been entered where justice so requires); Lieberman v. Lieberman, 43 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 1949) (“[T]he Chancellor permitted Mona Lieberman to intervene evidently for the primary purpose of giving her an opportunity to be heard in that court ... and the privilege of appeal.”); Reopelle v. Reopelle, 587 So. 2d 508, 509 (Fla. 5t…
-
Henderson v. Henderson, 226 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…ate requires a decision as to this issue, because a final judgment settles all of the property rights of the parties and bars any future action brought by either party to determine his or her respective property rights. Dockery v. Dockery, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 460; Shannon v. Shannon, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 428. The final judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of the wife as to such special interests and equities as she may be entitled, if any, under the evidence. In all other resp…
-
Shannon v. Shannon, 101 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…vorce, § 210, Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796, 82 A.L.R. 537; Welsh v. Welsh, 160 Fla. 380, 35 So. 2d 6. . 10 Fla.Jur., Divorce, § 210. . Heath v. Heath, supra, note 2; Foreman v. Foreman, supra, note 1. . Dockery v. Dockery, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 460; Howell v. Howell, Fla., 100 So. 2d 170.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence