GUY W. SEASHOLE, JR., AND BETH SEASHOLE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
F & H OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., A CORPORATION, AND BARBARA B. SEASHOLE, 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.
The Seasholes appealed from a trial court order denying their motion to intervene in a partition suit involving property they claimed to own. The appellate court addressed procedural issues including the timeliness and proper scope of the appeal, ultimately allowing the appeal of the denial of the intervention motion to proceed while quashing the appeal of the underlying partition judgment.
The appellate court granted the motion to quash the appeal insofar as it attempted to appeal the final judgment of partition dated March 31, 1971, but denied the motion to quash regarding the July 12, 1971 order denying the Seasholes' motion to intervene. The court allowed the appeal of the intervention denial to proceed.
[1] An appeal from an order denying a motion to intervene, object to confirmation, and for continuance is distinct from an appeal of a final judgment of partition.
[2] A motion to supplement the appellate record with materials not presented to the trial court will be denied.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“nunc pro tunc as of and effective June 14, 1971, the date that the motion was orally denied.”
Describes the trial court's entry of the order denying intervention, relating to the procedural timing of the order being reviewed on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuy W. Seashole, Jr. and Beth Seashole filed a motion to intervene in a partition case where F & H of Jacksonville, Inc. sued Barbara B. Seashole. The…
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 Partition cases and more on FLexlaw
Guy W. Seashole, Jr. and Beth Seashole, his wife, acting through their present attorneys, Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik and Nichols, did on July IS, 1971, file a notice of. appeal to review the order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, dated July 12, 1971, and effective June 14, 1971, and rendered on July 12, 1971, but not recorded “as of date hereof”, and the final judgment of partition dated March 31, 1971, and rendered and recorded in Volume 3204, page 342, Official Records of Duval County, Florida, and the judgment confirming sale dated June 14, 1971, and rendered and recorded on June 15, 1971.
On June 14, 1971, the said Guy W. Sea-shole, Jr. and Beth Seashole, his wife, filed with the Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida, in that certain case herein pending wherein the plaintiff was F & H of Jacksonville, Inc. and the defendant was Barbara B. Seashole, their motion for intervention, objection to confirmation and motion for continuance, in which it is alleged, inter alia, that the said Guy W. Seashole, Jr. did in truth and fact own one-half interest in the property which was the subject matter of the suit in question. The trial court rendered its order on said motion on July 12, 1971, “nunc pro tunc as of and effective June 14, 1971, the date that the motion was orally denied.” This order was filed July 12, 1971, and is included in the notice of appeal to this Court.
On August 18, 1971, Barbara B. Seashole, the named defendant in said suit, filed with this Court her motion to quash the appeal. On September 15, 1971, this Court entered its order granting the motion to quash insofar as the appeal attempts to appeal the final judgment of partition of March 31, 1971, recorded in Volume 3204, page 982, Official Records of Duval County, Florida, on June 15, 1971. The said motion to quash said appeal of the said order of July 12, 1971, denying the motion of Guy W. Sea-shole, Jr. and Beth Seashole to intervene for objection to confirmation and motion for continuance was denied.
Thereafter, on November 29, 1971, the defendant (appellee) Barbara B. Sea-shole filed with this Court her “Motion to Supplement Order, Final Judgment of Par*317tition, and Record of the Cause”. Attached to this motion were certain affidavits and copies of correspondence and matters which do not appear to have been before the trial court, and therefore should not now he considered by this Court before the trial court has first ruled on same or at least had a chance to examine the same to determine the effects thereof on the decision of the trial court. Therefore, the motion to supplement the record is hereby denied.
The motion to strike brief of appellee and the appendix attached thereto is granted, insofar as the appendix is concerned and such portion of the brief that pertains to the items appearing in the appendix.
The appellants, Guy W. Seashole, Jr. and Beth Seashole, are granted an extension of fifteen (IS) days from the rendition of this order within which to file a brief in support of their position on the yet pending appeal from the orders aforesaid, and the appellees, F & H of Jacksonville, Inc. and Barbara B. Seashole, are granted an extension of ten (10) days after receipt of appellants’ briefs within which to reply if they so desire.
SPECTOR, C. J., and JOHNSON and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Hillsborough Cnty. Governmental Emps. Ass'n, Inc., 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…because the function of the appellate court is to determine whether the lower tribunal committed error based on the issues and evidence before it. See Tyson v. Aikman, 159 Fla. 273, 31 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1947); Seashole v. F & H of Jacksonville, Inc., 258 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). We therefore hold that The Florida Evidence Code does not apply to appellate proceedings,1 and we are not bound by Section 90.203 to take judicial notice of those matters listed in Section 90.202. Although appellate courts may…
-
Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…and evidence before it. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Tyson v. Aikman, 159 Fla. 273, 31 So. 2d 272 (1947); and Seashole v. F & H of Jacksonville, Inc., 258 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Counsel for appellant relies on Rule 9.200(f) which allows for correcting and supplementing the record. This rule is intended to assure that any portion of the record before the lower tribunal which is material to a decision by…
-
Aurelian Smith, Jr. v. State, 614 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ial judge. This should be stricken, see Thomber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Altchiler v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 442 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Seashole v. F & H of Jacksonville, Inc., 258 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). . This was, of course, the judge who presided over the jury trial and knew and, in the exercise of judicial discretion, was entitled to consider, the evidence heard at trial of the underlying criminal case. . § 943.058(2), Fla…