IRENE PORTER, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY MARIE CHILDERS, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, resolved a procedural dispute regarding the sufficiency of an appellant's assignment of error under Florida Appellate Rule 3.5(c). The court held that an assignment of error directed to a final decree in toto, without detailed grounds, meets the rule's requirements because the rule eliminates the necessity for stating grounds in the assignment itself.
The court held that the assignment of error was sufficient under the rule because Rule 3.5(c) specifically eliminates the necessity for stating grounds of error in the assignment itself. The rule requires only that assignments designate identified judicial acts as they occurred; grounds for error are to be covered in the brief and legal points raised, not in the assignment.
“the assignments or cross assignments of error shall designate identified judicial acts which should be stated as they occurred; grounds for error need not be stated in the assignment.”
Sets forth the text of Florida Appellate Rule 3.5(c), which is the controlling standard for evaluating the sufficiency of assignments of error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Irene Porter appealed a final decree dated May 1, 1963, entered in a chancery proceeding. The appellee Betty Marie Childers moved to dismiss…
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.
The appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal for the alleged failure of the appellant to comply with Florida Appellate Rule 3.5, subd. c, 31 F.S.A. Specifically, the appellee complains that the appellant’s assignment of error, being directed to a final decree in toto, is so general as to preclude her from preparing a proper defense.
The appellant’s sole assignment of error is as follows:
“That the Court erred in making and entering that ‘FINAL DECREE’ dated May 1, 1963, and filed in the above styled cause on May 3, 1963, and Recorded on May 6, 1963, in Chancery Order Book 1678 on Page 291 of said Circuit.”
Florida Appellate Rule 3.5, subd. c, which became effective October 1, 1962, reads as follows:
“Essentials. The assignments or cross assignments of error shall designate identified judicial acts which should be stated as they occurred; grounds for error need not be stated in the assignment.”
Since the only judicial act of which the appellant complains is the entry of the adverse final decree, we conclude that the assignment of error meets the requirements and tests of the rule.
The rule specifically eliminates the necessity for the statement of the grounds of error in the assignments. This provision of the rule obviously contemplated that the grounds or reasons for the error assigned would be covered by the legal points raised in the brief as is apparent from the provisions of Rule 3.7, subd. f(3), Florida Appellate Rules. Of course, where there are multiple judicial acts of which an appellant complains, such acts would be the basis of assignments, assuming they were adverse. It is the judicial act which the rule contemplates should be assigned as error and not the reasons why the appellant concludes the act to be legally erroneous and the basis for a reversal. It often happens in equitable proceedings that the only recorded judicial act which the litigant can assign is the entry of a final or summary final decree, whereas in a common law action, many judicial acts occur which may or could be the basis for appropriate assignments of error.
Upon the basis of the motion filed in this cause and in consideration of the assignment of error, we conclude that it was sufficient under the requirements of the rule. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicholson v. Nicholson, 201 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…to assign as error the entry of the final decree to attack the validity of any part of the proceedings, or any portion of the decree. In support of this proposition, appellant contends that the Third District, in Porter v. Childers, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 403, approved an assignment of error identical to that in the case at bar. Appellant has, however,' overlooked the following language in the same decision, at p. 404: “ * * * Of course, where there are multiple judicial acts of which an appellant compl…
-
Cohen v. Cohen, 217 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ial act which the litigant can assign is the entry of a final or summary final decree, whereas in a common' law action, many judicial acts occur which may or could be the basis for appropriate assignments of error.” Porter v. Childers, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 403, 404. The court in the Nicholson case recognized the importance of this exerpt by quoting most of it (201 So. 2d at 908). Since it is clear that the questions presented in the points on appeal did not arise until the judgment of divorce was entere…
-
Porter v. Childers, 162 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)