LEATRICE M. BLUM, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUCE L. BLUM, APPELLEE
LEATRICE M. BLUM, APPELLANT,
BRUCE L. BLUM, APPELLEE
783 So. 2d 1122
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in all respects, finding no merit in any of the points raised by the former wife. As to the issue of the determination that the former husband would be responsible for some portion of the wife’s attorney’s fees, we are without jurisdiction, and therefore dismiss without prejudice. See Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Coastal Elec., Inc. v. Treasures ON the BAY II Condo Ass'n, Inc., 89 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ops South Florida from asserting Treasures is liable for payment in this case. Judicial estoppel applies only when a party takes inconsistent positions in separate judicial proceedings and thus causes prejudice to its adversary. Olmsted v. Emmanuel, 783 So. 2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Vining v. Segal, 773 So. 2d 1243, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Moreover, to trigger the doctrine, the positions must be “inherently inconsistent.” See Smith v. Avatar, 714 So. 2d 1103, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (findin…
-
Clay Cnty. Land Tr. v. HSBC Bank USA, 219 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…all of their interest(s)” in the properties. We agree with Appellee that the stipulation rendered this appeal moot and that Appellant is judicially estopped from now proceeding with its challenge to the foreclosure judgment. See Olmsted v. Emmanuel, 783 So. 2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (noting that the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents litigants from taking totally inconsistent positions in separate judicial proceedings to the prejudice of the adverse party); see also In re Metzler, 530 B.R…
-
Massey v. David, 831 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ination of the record reveals that Mr. David was not a party to the charging lien proceeding, either. Although he signed documents and defended his own conduct as Mr. Massey’s lawyer, he did so as counsel for Ruden McClosky. See Olmsted v. Emmanuel, 783 So. 2d 1122, 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Representing Ruden McClosky as its attorney did not make him a party to the proceeding. Nothing filed in the charging hen proceeding supports the view that Mr. David was participating as a party rather than as Ruden McClos…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)