RUTH S. HICKMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES C. HICKMAN, 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 appellate court affirmed a final decree in a partition proceeding, upholding the lower court's decision to proceed ex parte after the defendant failed to answer and subsequently filed a motion to vacate a decree pro confesso that did not comply with procedural rules.
No, the lower court did not err. The defendant was properly served, failed to answer, and her subsequent motion to vacate the decree pro confesso was untimely and non-compliant with procedural rules.
“Thereupon, a decree pro confesso was entered against her on February 5, 1962, and the cause properly proceeded ex parte under provisions of Rule 3.9, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.”
Establishes the procedural basis for the lower court's actions after the defendant's failure to respond.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was personally served with process in a partition proceeding but failed to answer the complaint within the required time. A decree pro 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 Ex Parte Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Ruth S. Hickman, defendant in partition proceedings in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, has appealed from the Final Decree entered February 7, 1962, and assigned as errors entry of Order of Sale without notice to her of application therefor, Order of Court denying defendant’s Motion to Vacate Decree pro Confesso, and the Order Confirming Sale of Property.
The defendant was personally served with process. Her Motion to Dismiss the complaint was denied. She failed to' Answer within the time required by Order of Court. Thereupon, a decree pro confesso was entered against her on February 5, 1962, and the cause properly proceeded ex parte under provisions of Rule 3.9, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. Thereafter, on March 2nd, 1962, defendant filed a Motion to Vacate the Decree pro Con-fesso.
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the decree pro confesso was not timely filed, and otherwise did not comply with the provisions of Rule 3.10, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Counsel for Appellee is allowed $200.00 for his services rendered incident to this Appeal, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property as other costs are to be paid.
The Final Decree is Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hickman v. Hickman, 177 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…dered in the partition suit. At that time, the wife was in possession, by virtue of an award to that effect in the final decree of divorce. On appeal by the wife, the final decree in the partition suit was affirmed. Hickman v. Hickman, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 555, and certiorari denied by the Supreme Court on April 7, 1963, 155 So. 2d 150. Upon the appeal by the wife the lower court granted a supersedeas, fixing the amount and conditions of the bond, viz.: “conditioned as required by law in the amount of On…