CATHERINE H. CARTER, MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE HOWARTH TRUST, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY S. HOWARTH, 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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion to add beneficiaries and property purchasers as parties defendants.
Appellant, as trustee, sued to restrain litigation affecting trust assets. Appellee moved to add beneficiaries and property purchasers as parties, arg…
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 Necessary Party cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Acting Chief Judge.
This interlocutory appeal seeks reversal of the trial court’s order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to add certain named persons as parties defendants.
In her capacity as managing trustee of the Howarth Trust, appellant instituted the present action by seeking a restraining order to forestall litigation affecting trust assets. By an amended restraining order, the trial court permitted defendants to file any defenses, answers, motions, counter-or cross-claims, notices or other such pleadings. Thereafter, defendant moved to add certain persons as parties defendants upon the ground that the central issue of the case as embraced in the pleadings subsequently filed by appellee, is the validity of the trust itself.
The trial court granted appellee’s motion to add as parties those persons named as beneficiaries of the Howarth Trust and certain persons who had purchased property from said Trust. Appellant now contends that this ruling was erroneous.
We do not agree. In light of the well-known principles that all persons materially interested in the subject matter of a suit should be made parties thereto and that all persons whose rights or interests may be affected by the cancellation of an instrument are proper and necessary parties, we do not believe that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting appellee’s motion to add parties defendants.
The appellant having failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in entering the order appealed herein, the same is accordingly affirmed.
SPECTOR, J., and YAWN, THERON A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bermudez v. Bermudez, 421 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…cerning the conveyance. Thus, Jorge was a necessary party to any action seeking to cancel or rescind a conveyance which, in part, was made to him. See W.F.S. Company v. The Anniston National Bank, 140 Fla. 213, 191 So. 300 (1939); Carter v. Howarth, 285 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); H.P. Trawick, Jr., Florida Practice & Procedure § 4-4, p. 30-31 (1981). Our af-firmance without opinion and the mandate which followed at most approved the. trial court’s findings in respect to the dispute between Sara and Gusta…
-
Alphonso McCRAY v. Adams, 529 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…rmine that, if not an indispensable party, Skolsky is a necessary party that the court believes should be present before it issues a ruling resolving the issues raised in the amended complaint. 39 Fla.Jur.2d Parties § 14. See also Carter v. Howarth, 285 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We found cases cited by appellant on this point distinguishable and unpersuasive.6 Johns-Mansville is a suit for declaratory relief in bankruptcy court where the co-defendants to the one discharged in bankrupt [*1137] cy urged…