CHARLES KUSENS AND LOIS KUSENS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID JOHANNESBURG AND WILBUR JOHANNESBURG, 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.
This case involves consolidated appeals challenging two post-mandate orders: one discharging an escrow agent and another dismissing an amended complaint for partition. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding no error and that the issues raised had already been decided.
No, the lower court did not err in either discharging the escrow agent or dismissing the amended complaint for partition. The issues raised by the appellants had already been decided adversely to them in prior proceedings.
“The orders under review arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought review of two orders issued after a previous mandate: one discharging an escrow agent and another dismissing an amended complaint fo…
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.
By these consolidated appeals, the appellants seek review of two orders entered subsequent to the mandate going down in Kusens v. Johannesburg, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 468. One of these orders discharged the escrow agent referred to in the cited case. The other dismissed an amended complaint for partition.
The orders under review arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Dade County v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198; Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 859; Coleman v. Coleman, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 460. It was incumbent upon the appellants to make error appear. Easton v. Weir, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 1; City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 21. Measuring the orders complained of in light of these principles, we find no error in the order discharging the escrow agent [see: McFadden v. Swinerton, 36 Or. 336, 59 P. 816, 62 P. 12; Golden v. O’Connell, 76 W.Va. 282, 85 S.E. 533; 2 A.L.R. 463], and no error in the order dismissing the amended complaint for partition. The issue of the right of the appellant, Lois Kusens, *469to an interest in the title to the property involved was raised in the earlier proceeding and ruled on adversely to her. See: McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 126 Fla. 808, 172 So. 57; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40.
Therefore, we find no error in the orders here under review and same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sebastian v. THE City of Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1909)
- Dade Cnty. v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- The City OF S. BAY v. Armstrong, 188 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Althouse v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 183 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 191 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Nikitas Pavlis v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 126 Fla. 808 (Fla. 1937)
- Easton v. Weir, 188 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Tequesta Dev. Corp. v. Jupiter Util. Co., Inc., 182 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Kusens v. Johannesburg, 182 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)