PEARL M. DICK, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD I. DICK, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's order allowing defendant-husband to join his father-in-law as a third-party defendant in a divorce action, holding that third-party claims unrelated to the divorce must be brought in a separate action.
A third party may not be joined in a divorce action under Rule 1.180 when the defendant's cause of action against the third party is totally unrelated to the divorce and constitutes an independent action.
[1] A third party may not be joined in a divorce action under Rule 1.180 when the defendant's cause of action against the third party is unrelated to the divorce and constitu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce action, after both parties rested their cases, the defendant-husband moved to add his father-in-law as a third-party defendant. The plain…
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 Divorce Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal of an order of the circuit court authorizing the defendant-husband to add a third party in a divorce action. The order was entered pursuant to a motion made by the defendant-husband after the plaintiff and defendant had introduced all their evidence and rested their case. The party whom the court authorized the defendant to join in the divorce suit is the defendant’s father-in-law.
The plaintiff-wife objected to the order allowing the addition of a third party defendant and has appealed from the adverse order.
The appellant contends that it was error for the trial judge to allow the third party to be joined as a defendant in the divorce action.
In support of her contention, she argues that the defendant has not alleged that the third party is or may be liable to him for all or some part of the relief sought against him as defendant by the plaintiff, and therefore the impleadings of the third party does not come within the scope of Rule 1.180 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.
We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that there is no basis in the rule for the order allowing the defendant to bring in the third party since defendant’s cause of action against the third party is totally unrelated to the divorce action. It is the subject of an independent action and should not be joined in the divorce action. Hendrie v. Hendrie, 118 Fla. 478, 159 So. 667 (1935); Hill v. Hill, 123 Fla. 571, 167 So. 414 (1936).
The order appealed is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dick v. Dick, 240 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 238 So. 2d 469. DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ, concur. ERVIN, C. J, and ROBERTS and ADKINS, JJ, dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. Hill, 123 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1936)
- Gideon F. Hendrie v. Hendrie, 118 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1935)