CLARA B. HALL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES B. MCDONOUGH, AS ADMINISTRATOR, C. T. A. D. B. N. OF THE ESTATE OF C. A. RUDISILL, DECEASED, 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 a dispute over shares of stock and funds deposited in a Swiss bank. The appellate court determined that the administrator's counterclaim against Clara B. Hall individually was improper because she was acting solely in her capacity as guardian and not in her personal capacity.
No, the counterclaim against Clara B. Hall individually was not proper because she was acting solely as a guardian and not in her own right, and the ward was not joined as a party plaintiff as required by statute.
“Clara B. Hall individually is not an "opposing party" within the meaning of F.R.C.P. 1.170, 30 F.S.A.”
Establishes that the appellant, in her individual capacity, was not a proper party to the counterclaim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClara B. Hall, as guardian, sued the administrator of an estate to impress a trust on stock, claiming the deceased had promised it for her ward's educ…
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 Action To Impress A Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
Clara B. Hall, as guardian, brought this action against the administrator of the estate of C. A. Rudisill to impress a trust on certain shares of Tampa Electric Company stock which Mrs. Hall claims that Rudisill, in a letter to her, had told her would constitute a trust fund for the education of her ward. The administrator filed a counterclaim against Clara B. Hall individually in which it is alleged that funds Rudisill deposited in a Swiss bank were wrongfully withdrawn after his death by Mrs. Hall pursuant to a power of attorney which Mrs. Hall claims was valid under Swiss law.
We resist the temptation to explore the intricacies of the conflict of laws on this interlocutory appeal. It suffices to say that Clara B. Hall individually is not an “opposing party” within the meaning of F.R.C.P. 1.170, 30 F.S.A. Nor is she made a party by failing to join the ward as a party plaintiff as Florida Statutes § 744.61 (1967), F.S.A. requires. The pleadings indicate clearly that Mrs. Hall claims nothing in her own right and sues only as guardian. This she may do because the law regards her as a separate legal person while acting in this capacity. The counterclaim against Mrs. Hall individually should have been dismissed. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Ball, 208 So.2d 282 (Fla.App.1968).
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Terminals, Inc. v. MC Constr. Grp., Inc., 964 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…took on the role of plaintiff in its capacity as surety. A plaintiff who brings or maintains an action solely in its capacity as the representative of another is not an “opposing party” against whom a counterclaim might be filed. Hall v. McDonough, 216 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). A counterclaim cannot properly be brought or maintained against that plaintiff in its individual capacity. Id. Accord, Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Ball, 208 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Moreover, Florida Rule of Civi…
-
Vargas v. State, 252 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…udges. Depending on the outcome of the hearing on the speedy trial question, a new trial may or may not follow. Rehearing denied. MANN, Acting C. J., McNULTY, J., and BEACH, ROBERT E., Associate Judge, concur. . Ausburn v. State, Fla.App.2d 1968, 216 So. 2d 84. . This question is determinable upon remand in the light of Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970) ; Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969) ; Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967) ; Un…
-
McDONOUGH v. Hall, 241 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…against appellee-Hall, individually, nor is appellant precluded from proceeding as he may be advised in a new, separate and independent action. Affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur. . Hall v. McDonough (Fla.App.2d 1968), 216 So. 2d 84.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris v. AETNA Ins. Co., 208 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Fidelity-Philadelphia Tr. Co. & C. M. Johnson under Deed of Tr. of L. G. Ball dated 18 December v. Ball, 208 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)