LILLIAN PORTERFIELD, APPELLANT,
v.
CHAUNCEY B. PORTERFIELD, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a post-decree order that issued an injunction. The injunction was based on a prior final decree that awarded the wife's stock to the husband. However, this court had already reversed that portion of the final decree, ruling the wife was entitled to retain her stock.
No, the injunction is without foundation and present purpose because the appellate court has already ruled that the wife is entitled to retain her jointly owned stock interest.
“This court having ruled, on the wife's appeal from the final decree, that she is entitled to retain her jointly owned stock interest in said corporations, the injunction order to which this appeal is directed is without foundation and present purpose, and accordingly is reversed.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the injunction.
The wife sued for and obtained a decree for alimony unconnected with divorce. The final decree, however, divested the wife of stock she jointly owned …
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 Alimony Unconnected With Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a post final decree order. The appellant had sued for and obtained a decree for alimony unconnected, with divorce. In the opinion filed by this, court on this date, on appeal by the wife-from the final decree, we reversed a portion of the decree which divested the plaintiff wife of. stock which she owned jointly with her husband in two corporations. See Porterfield v. Porterfield, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 16. The interlocutory order now-appealed was an injunction designed to-limit the control or participation of the-wife in the management of the corporations,, being based upon and consistent with the (superseded) final decree which awarded', the wife’s stock to the husband. This court having ruled, on the wife’s appeal from the-final decree, that she is entitled to retain-her jointly owned stock interest in said' corporations, the injunction order to which, this appeal is directed is without foundation and present purpose, and accordingly-is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…parties indicated negotiations were ongoing); Breakers of Fort Walton Beach Condominiums, Inc. v. Atlantic [*301] Beach Management, Inc., 552 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Industrial Medicine Publishing Co., Inc. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (“In contract actions, the complaint must allege the execution of the contract, the obligation thereby assumed, and the breach.”), In support of its claim in Count I, Appellant re-alleged Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the genera…
-
Friedman v. NEW York Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…reach of contract action requires three elements: (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages. J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Indus. Med. Pub. Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (“In contract actions, the complaint must allege the execution of the contract, the obligation thereby assumed, and the breach.”). Appellant identifies several statutory sections that have been violated by the contract, but f…
-
Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…f an oral contract, the obligation thereby assumed, and a breach. It therefore set forth sufficient facts which taken as true, would state a cause of action for breach of contract. Industrial Medicine Publishing Co. v. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc., 181 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Appellees argue that the alleged contract is too indefinite to be enforced. We disagree. As long as an essential ingredient is not missing from an agreement, courts have been reluctant to hold contracts unenforceable on grounds…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porterfield v. Chauncey B. Porterfield, 181 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)