ELIZABETH M. NYE AND GORDON NYE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
BAY VIEW ESTATES CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; TRASULEE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; J. O. PHILLIPS, APPELLEES
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a creditor's bill, holding that the complainant failed to present sufficient testimony to support their allegations of fraudulent conveyances.
Yes, the dismissal was proper because the complainant failed to provide supporting testimony essential to overcome the denials in the defendants' answers.
“At the time the cause was set down for final hearing on the amended bill of complainant and defendant’s answers thereto, the state of the pleadings was such that the Court could not have made a decree for complainant in the absence of supporting testimony essential to overcome the denials by the answer of portions of the amended bill which the answers in contemplation of law denied.”
Explains the legal standard for a decree in favor of the complainant when answers deny allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a creditor's bill to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances made by Bay View Estates Corporation. The defendants filed answers deny…
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 Creditor'S Bill cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed a creditor’s bill to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances claimed to have been made by the defendant, Bay View Estates Corporation, to Tresulee Company and J. 0. Phillips. Answers were filed to the amended bill which put in issue some of the essential allegations which it was necessary for the complainant to establish in order to have a favorable decree. TFe time for taking testimony expired without any testimony having been taken or attempted to be taken to support the allegations of the complainant’s amended bill. On a final hearing on bill and answer, the Chancellor decreed-*708the equities to be with the defendants and dismissed the suit. The appeal here is from the final decree of dismissal on bill and answer.
At the time the cause was set down for final hearing on the amended bill of complainant and defendant’s answers thereto, the state of the pleadings was such that the Court could not have made a decree for complainant in the absence of supporting testimony essential to overcome the denials by the answer of portions of the amended bill which the answers in contemplation of law denied. Under the circumstances the Chancellor’s dismissal of the amended bill was proper. Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148, 135 South. Rep. 563; Oakland Properties Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 Sou. Rep. 845.
No other reversible errors have been made to appear, so the decree appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rusher Rich v. Hunter, 147 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1941)…by the interrogatories and answers thereto which have been filed since. Where essential allegations of a bill are denied and no proof given to support those allegations the bill may be properly dismissed. Nye v. Bay View Estates [*729] Corporation, 106 Fla. 707, 143 Sou. 72. But here there is considerable testimony supporting the material allegations of the bill. Further, many of the allegations of the bill have not been denied by the answers of some or all of the defendants and are therefore admitted. Th…
-
Colonial Drug Co. v. Salas, 135 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1938)…smissing the cause. The case at bar is ruled by Ropes v. Jenerson, 45 Fla. 556, 34 So. 955, 110 Am. St. Rep. 79; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296, 128 So. 821; Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148, 135 So. 563; Nye v. Bay View Estates Corp., 106 Fla. 707, 143 So. 597. We have examined the briefs filed by counsel and heard argument at the bar of this Court and we are of the opinion that the order or decree appealed from is without error and should be affirmed. It is so ordered. Whitfield, P. J., and…
Authorities Cited
- Rigby v. Middlebrooks, 102 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1931)
- Hinton v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 96 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1928)
- Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1928)