ALEXANDER COHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY COHEN, 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 addresses whether a single assignment of error can support multiple points on appeal, specifically in the context of a divorce judgment. The court held that it can, as long as the points arise from a single judicial act.
Yes, a single assignment of error can support multiple points on appeal if each point arises from the same single judicial act. The court found that the entry of a final divorce judgment is such an act.
“It appears to us that two different points involving two elements of a final judgment of divorce may be argued under a single assignment of error if each arises from a single judicial act, namely, the entry of final judgment.”
This quote establishes the court's core holding regarding the relationship between assignments of error and points on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee moved to dismiss an appeal from a final judgment of divorce, arguing that the appellant's single assignment of error was insufficient to …
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 Motion To Dismiss Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee, Mary Cohen, has moved to dismiss this appeal from a final judgment of divorce upon the ground that a single assignment of error is insufficient to support the two points raised on appeal. The appellant’s assignment of- error is:
“The Dade County Circuit Court erred in entering its final judgment of divorce on April 19, 1968 recorded in Circuit Court Minute Book 939 at Page 708 of the records of said court.”
His two points on appeal are:
“POINT I
Was the Chancellor’s award of $12.00 per week plus $1,200.00 as lump sum alimony supported by substantial competent evidence?
“POINT II
Did the Chancellor abuse his discretion in awarding $12.00 per week plus $1,-200.00 as lump sum alimony without considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, where the husband has retirement income of $185.00 per month and $6,000.00 in assets and the wife has $12,000.00 in assets ?”
The appellee relies upon Nicholson v. Nicholson, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 907, interpreting the holding in that case to be that an appellant may not raise more than one point on appeal if he makes only one assignment of error. We think this interpretation is mistaken. It appears to us that two different points involving two elements of a final judgment of divorce may be argued under a single assignment of error if each arises from a single judicial act, namely, the entry of final judgment. This..is so because:
“[i]t 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.” 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 entered, we deny the appellee’s motion to dismiss.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harold Ratner et ux. v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 362 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1978)…ific judicial acts alleged as error. The district court’s decision conflicts with the principles set forth in Hurt v. Naples, 299 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1974); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Holland, 269 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Cohen v. Cohen, 217 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); and Nicholson v. Nicholson, 201 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). Therefore, we have jurisdiction to review this case pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3). We reverse the district court’s order dismissing this appeal and remand t…
Authorities Cited
- Porter v. Childers, 155 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Nicholson v. Nicholson, 201 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)