JAMES MILGRAM AND SUNSHINE FOOD PRODUCTS CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD LEE, 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 court affirmed the final decree, finding no reversible error in the points raised on appeal.
Appellants appealed a final decree, raising issues regarding the appointment of a receiver and other matters. Appellee noted defects in appellants' br…
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 Fraudulent Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
In their brief on appeal, appellants have failed to state any “[s]pecific assignments of error from which the points argued arise.” Rule 3.7 subd. f(4), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Applefield v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 366. Appellee has noted this defect in his brief but has not moved to strike appellants’ brief. Without waiving his rights to strike, appellee has answered appellants’ points on appeal. Under these circumstances, we proceed to the merits.
Appellants claim that an improper person was appointed as receiver during the progress of the action. This is not a ground for reversal of a final decree based on a consideration of all the equities of the parties. Bird et al. v. Earle & Perkins, 15 Fla. 447 (1875); Cf. Edenfield v. Crisp, Fla. App.1966, 186 So.2d 545; 27 Fla.Jur. Receivers, § 20 p. 608.
Appellants’ second point on appeal has been examined and is denied, as there was sufficient, competent evidence before the chancellor to sustain his ruling. See: Farmers’ Bank & Trust Co. v. Palms Pub. Co., 86 Fla. 371, 98 So. 143 (1923); 20 Fla. Jur. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 24 and 136.
The third point on appeal has been examined and is, in our opinion, free of reversible error. A third person may seek equitable relief from a judgment obtained by fraud if they have a sufficient interest thereunder. Compare Protective Holding Corporation v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1937). Here, the ap-pellee was both a creditor and a stockholder.
The final decree is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alva Ramey and Wanda L. Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…tat. (1979). . § 732.103 Fla.Stat. (1979) (inheritance) and § 61.13(2)(b) Fla.Stat. (1979) (visitation rights of grandparents in dissolution proceedings). . § 63.172 Fla.Stat. (1979). . Rule 1.540(b), Fla.Rules of Civil Procedure; Milgram v. Lee, 200 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA ■ 1977). Appellants technically should have filed a new proceeding attaching the final judgment rather than a motion under Rule 1.540(b). However, this court will treat this proceeding as though it had been property filed, to avoid furt…
-
Helene Pearlman v. Pearlman, 405 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…2 Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 17 U. Miami L. Rev. 276 (1963). Under the Florida law, a third person may seek equitable relief from a judgment obtained by fraud if he has a sufficient interest in that judgment. Milgram v. Lee, 200 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). There is some confusion under Florida law, however, whether an unnamed party is limited to relief by independent action. In Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the court found that failure to fulfill a fiduciary d…
Authorities Cited
- Farmers Bank & Tr. Co. v. Palms Publ'g Co., 86 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1923)
- Edenfield v. Crisp, 186 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Sirmons v. D. C. White Homes, Inc., 176 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Protective Holding Corp. v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1936)
- Bird v. Earle & Perkins, 15 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1875)
- Applefield v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 176 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)