W. H. FORD
v.
LULA BRAWLEY FORD, ET AL.
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.
W. H. Ford appealed a lower court decision, and the Florida Supreme Court addressed various procedural motions before hearing the merits. The Court denied appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, awarded appellee solicitor's fees of $100, allowed amendment of assignment of error, and denied the appellant's request for immediate oral argument on the merits.
The Court held that the appeal presents substantial justiciable questions and is not frivolous, that the appellee should be awarded $100 in solicitor's fees as a condition of proceeding, that amendment of assignment of error No. 2 to correct dates is permitted, and that the case is not ready for final disposition at this time.
“We have examined the record and find that substantial justiciable questions are presented.”
Court's rejection of appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and in bad faith
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between W. H. Ford (appellant) and Lula Brawley Ford and others (appellees). The lower court rendered a decision that Ford…
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 Oral Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on five motions.
First, appellee moves to dismiss the appeal because it is frivolous and taken in bad faith. We have examined the record and find that substantial justiciable questions are presented. The motion to dismiss is denied.
Second, appellee moves the Court to grant an order allowing her solicitor’s fees for services rendered and to be rendered and to be rendered in this Court. Under the state of the record it is our judgment that the appellee should be allowed solicitor’s fees. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appellant do pay to the appellee *632for her solicitor’s fees in this Court the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) dollars and that the same shall be paid before the appellant shall be allowed to proceed with the cause here and, unless the same is paid within thirty days from the entry of this order, the cause will be dismissed. The Court retains jurisdiction to allow additional fees, if same shall appear in accordance with right and justice on final disposition of the cause.
Third. The appellant moves for leave to amend assignment of error No. 2 by inserting correct in lieu of incorrect dates as they now appear. The motion is granted.
Fourth. Appellant moves the Court to hear short oral argument on merit at time of hearing these motions and dispose of appeal completely. The cause is not ready for final disposition. So motion must be denied.
Appellee has not filed brief but has in the fifth motion above referred to moved the Court to stay proceedings until the Court has acted upon her motion to strike appellant’s original brief and incorporates motion to strike the brief. The motion to strike the brief is denied. The order to stay proceedings is denied and the appellee is allowed twenty (20) days from the date of the entry of this order in which to file her brief.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Princess Vladimir Eristavitchitcherine v. Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 154 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1944)…odges v. Moore, 46 Fla. 598, 35 So. 13; Griffith v. Henderson, 52 Fla. 507, 42 So. 705; Buck v. All Parties, etc., 86 Fla. 86, 97 So. 313; Ocean Frontage Company v. McFadden, 98 Fla. 197, 123 So. 666; Bartlett & Sons Company v. Pan-American Studios, 144 Fla. 631, 198 So. 195; Edwards v. Edwards, 144 Fla. 374, 198 So. 14. Nor does the filing of briefs to the merits by an appellee, as here, cure the defect, as the parties cannot confer, by waiver or consent, jurisdiction of the subject matter where such juris…
-
Ex parte Sams, 67 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1953)…the reasonable conclusion that the appeal was taken merely for delay. Williams v. State ex rel. Nuccio, 97 Fla. 876, 122 So. 523; Ruff v. Guaranty Title, etc. Co., 99 Fla. 197, 126 So. 383; North v. Ringling, 133 Fla. 117, 182 So. 582; Ford v. Ford, 144 Fla. 631, 198 So. 205. Where a superficial examination of the records and briefs fails to show that an appeal is wholly devoid of merit but reveals that questions are presented which may be considered debatable, the court should deny the motion and then eit…