D. J. HOBBS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FIDELITY TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BEVERLY SMITH, MABEL F. SMITH, RUSS LUMBER COMPANY, W. F. MOOCK AND WEST COAST LUMBER & SUPPLY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the entry of a decree pro confesso and the subsequent final decree against the appellant were erroneous. The court determined that the appellee's answer did not constitute a counterclaim and therefore did not require a response from the appellant.
No, the entry of the decree pro confesso and the final decree were improper. The appellee's answer did not constitute a counterclaim, and therefore, no response was required from the appellant.
“The appeal here is from an order entering a decree pro confesso and a final decree.”
Identifies the subject of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, D. J. Hobbs, appealed an order that entered a decree pro confesso and a final decree. This decree pro confesso was based on the lower c…
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 Decree Pro Confesso cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
The appeal here is from an order entering a decree pro confesso and a final decree. The decree pro confesso was entered upon the theory that the answer of the defendant Beverly Smith presented a counter claim and therefore required an answer thereto from Hobbs the appellant.
The answer of Smith fails to set up a counter claim and required no answer. Turner et al, v. Utley et al, 93 Fla. 910; 112 So. R. 837. The entry of decree pro confesso was error. The final decree against Hobbs based on the decree pro confesso is error. The Bill of Complaint, the answer of Hobbs and the replication thereto present an issue which demands adjudication in accordance with such evidence as may be adduced touching the same.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, ,J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.