GERTRUDIS MAEDER, APPELLANT,
v.
HERMAN GRAYSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SIMON SILVERMAN, 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.
The court held that the plaintiff's attempt to split her cause of action by filing a new complaint was prohibited and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
The plaintiff filed a complaint for a declaratory decree after a previous case involving the same parties and issues was remanded. The trial court dis…
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 Splitting Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff below, Maeder, filed her complaint for a declaratory decree against Herman Grayson as Administrator of the Estate of Simon Silverman. Grayson filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice, relying upon a previous opinion of this court in Grayson v. Maeder, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 796.
Appellant’s first point for reversal does not appear to have been raised in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on this appeal. See Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 312.
We note that no action has been taken on the order which remanded the first appeal of this case, supra, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the second amended complaint without prejudice so that Maeder have the opportunity to show, if possible, that she had complied with the applicable statute concerning her equitable claim or have the opportunity to proceed on her legal claim. This case, therefore, is still pending in the trial court.
Notwithstanding the pending case, Mae-der thereafter filed her complaint for declaratory decree which was dismissed with prejudice and is now before us by this appeal.
We affirm the trial court. We find that the plaintiff Maeder is attempting to *243split her cause of action and to have two causes of action against the same party for issues involved in the same cause. This is ordinarily prohibited in Florida. See 1 Fla. Jur. Actions § 42 and case cited therein. This does not mean, however, that plaintiff is without a remedy. She still has pending in the trial court a cause of action against this defendant. She may want to attempt to proceed under that pending cause of action or she may dismiss it and join all of her causes of action against this defendant in one suit and plead in the alternative.
For these reasons, the order of dismissal be and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Opa-Locka v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 247 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ndustries then the statute is unconstitutional. The appellant did not raise the issue of the constitutionality of F.S. § 192.62(c), F.S.A., in the trial court, we therefore decline to pursue that subject further. See Maeder v. Grayson, Fla.App.1968, 222 So. 2d 242. We must presume therefore that the appellant means to argue that the statute is susceptible to two interpretations and that we should choose the interpretation that is constitutional, cf Overstreet v. Blum, Fla.1969, 227 So. 2d 197. Subsection (1)…
-
GAC Props., Inc. v. Carmine, 258 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…trial court as to whether the 1961 contract should have been proven by “clear and convincing evidence” as opposed to a mere preponderance of the evidence and such point may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Maeder v. Grayson, Fla.App.1968, 222 So. 2d 242; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal & Error § 607 and 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 241. Assuming an issue as to the necessary burden of proof was properly raised and ruled upon below we nevertheless hold that a finding that plaintiff established the validity, exist…
-
Gertrude Maeder v. Grayson, 227 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…second in equity which sought to impress a trust. In response to the equity suit, Grayson filed a motion to dismiss which was granted, dismissing the equity complaint with prejudice. An appeal was taken, case No. 68-96, and in a per curiam opinion, 222 So. 2d 242, filed November 19, 1968, this court held as follows: “Notwithstanding the pending case, Maeder thereafter filed her complaint for declaratory decree which was dismissed with prejudice and is now before us by this appeal. [*309] “We affirm the tria…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marsh v. Sarasota Cnty., 97 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Grayson v. Gertrudis Maeder, 186 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)