SHELLY B. NICE F/K/A SHELLY B. SHAPIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY L. SHAPIRO, APPELLEE
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 reversed the trial court's dismissal of a former wife's post-dissolution petition for monetary relief and enforcement of a marital settlement agreement, holding that the motion to dismiss was procedurally infirm because it relied on undisclosed portions of the bankruptcy petition and the unclean hands doctrine did not apply.
A motion to dismiss based on matters outside the pleadings and relying on undisclosed portions of a bankruptcy petition is procedurally infirm and cannot support dismissal of a post-dissolution petition for enforcement of a marital settlement agreement.
[1] A motion to dismiss that relies on matters outside the pleadings, including undisclosed portions of a bankruptcy petition, is procedurally infirm and cannot support dismi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former wife filed a petition seeking monetary relief and enforcement of the marital settlement …
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 Procedural Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the entry of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former wife filed a petition seeking both monetary relief and enforcement of the terms of the marital settlement agreement. The former husband filed a motion to dismiss in which he claimed that the former wife had not disclosed the post-dissolution litigation in her bankruptcy; to the motion, the former husband attached only a portion of the former wife’s bankruptcy petition. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. We reverse.
The motion to dismiss was procedurally infirm, since it raised matters outside of the former wife’s petition. The pending litigation was disclosed in the bankruptcy proceeding in a part of the petition which the former husband did not attach to his motion. The doctrine of unclean hands, upon which the trial court apparently based its ruling, was inapplicable to the former wife’s conduct disclosed in the record in this ease. See Hauer v. Thum, 67 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1953); Hitt v. Hitt, 535 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Finally, the existence of the bankruptcy proceeding did not preclude the former wife from filing the post-dissolution petition for the particular claim at issue in this case.
GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hauer v. Thum, 67 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1953)
- Hitt v. Hitt, 535 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)