W. H. FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
LULA BRAWLEY FORD AND ELLA PERRY AND FLORIDA BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's dismissal of a divorce complaint, finding that the complaint, even with its amendments, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss on grounds of extreme cruelty.
Yes, the bill of complaint, in either of its amended forms, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The allegations, while not perfect, provided a basis for the divorce claim.
“We have examined both bills of complaint and while we do not pronounce them model pleadings, we think either is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the pleadings were adequate despite not being perfect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a bill of complaint seeking a divorce from the appellee on the grounds of extreme cruelty. After an amended bill and a counterclai…
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 Extreme Cruelty cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed his bill of complaint praying to be divorced from appellee on the ground of extreme cruelty. To the bill of complaint as voluntarily amended, the defendant filed an answer and a counter claim. On consideration of a motion to dismiss the latter, the chancellor ordered the filing of an amended bill of complaint which was filed but was dismissed with prejudice at the cost of complainant. This appeal is from the latter decree.
The question we are required to answer is whether or not the bill of complaint as voluntarily amended or as amended by order of the chancellor was sufficient -as a predicate for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty.
We have examined both bills of complaint and while we do not pronounce them model pleadings, we think either is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Appellee contends that the allegations of both bills are in open con*29flict with each other, that the relief sought is mutually hostile and that it is based on diametrically opposed averments. In fine, it is contended that the pleadings are in hopeless confusion and that the chancellor was correct in requiring that they be repleaded.
We do not find sufficient ground for this contention to dismiss the bill of complaint so the decree appealed from is reversed.
Reversed.
Brown, C. J., Buford, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. Murphy, 151 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1942)…rce v. Pasquarello, 125 Fla. 330, 169 So. 727; In re Estate of J. B. Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410, 181 So. 833; In re Comstock Estate, 143 Fla. 500, 197 So. 121; Dill v. Stevens, 144 Fla. 307, 197 So. 849; State ex rel. Courtney v. Harrison, 143 Fla. 727, 200 So. 345. Pertinent provisions of Section 120, supra, are to the effect that no claim or demand, whether due or not, direct or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated . . . shall be valid or binding upon an estate . . . unless the claim shall be in writing a…
-
Field v. Newsom, 170 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…to his claim, nor did he revive his suit against the deceased defendant by substituting the representatives of the Estate within such time. See: Schilling v. Biggs, 108 Fla. 351, 146 So. 559 (1933); State ex rel. Courtney v. Harrison, 145 Fla. 727, 200 So. 345 (1941). Thereafter, upon a presentation of these facts by affidavit, the trial judge entered what was in effect a summary final judgment for the defendant. The basis of this judgment was the conclusion of law of the trial judge that the claim was ba…