E. L. HAWKINS, AS ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON OF THE ESTATE OF WISE PERRY, DECEASED,
v.
HOWARD PERRY
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.
An administrator of an estate appealed from a trial court's denial of a motion to compel the defendant to account for estate property and produce records, and from a subsequent dismissal order. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not challenge orders he himself requested and could not use a timely appeal from one order to review an untimely one.
The court held that an appellant cannot challenge the correctness of orders entered at his own instance and request, and that an appeal from a timely order cannot be used to review orders from which the time to appeal has expired.
“As the order of July 23, 1940, dismissing the cause was entered at the instance and request of the plaintiff, the appellant here, he cannot be heard to challenge the correctness of such order.”
Establishes the principle that a party cannot appeal from an order that he himself requested.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE. L. Hawkins, as administrator de bonis non of the Estate of Wise Perry, filed a motion requiring defendant Howard Perry to file a sworn accounting o…
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 Appellate Review Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on appeal entered the 2nd day of October, 1940. Notice of appeal states that the appeal is “from that certain interlocutory order denying his motion to require the defendant to account and produce *767the records of plaintiff’s estate, said order being recorded in Chancery Order Book 8 at page 192, and from the final decree dismissing his suit entered on the 23rd day of July, 1940, in that certain cause pending in the Circuit Court for Martin County, Florida, in Chancery, wherein E. L. Hawkins as administrator aforesaid was plaintiff and Howard Perry was defendant, said decree being recorded in Chancery Order Book Number 8 at page 302 in the Clerk’s office of said court.”
It is noted that the appeal is from two orders. The first order, being referred to as being entered in Chancery Order Book 8 at page 192, was entered on March 1, 1940, and recorded on March 4, 1940, in words and figures as follows :■
“This cause coming on this day to be heard upon the Motion of the Plaintiff to require the Defendant to file a complete sworn accounting of the property of the estate of Wise Perry and for the production of books, records, etc., and upon argument of counsel the court being advised in the premises;
“It Is Hereby Ordered that the said Motion be, and the same is hereby, denied.
“Done and Ordered in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 1st day of March, A. D. 1940.”
The motion on which that order was entered was as follows:
“Comes now the plaintiff by his undersigned attorney and moves the court to require the defendant to file a complete sworn accounting of the property of the estate of Wise Perry that came into his hands, what disposition he has made of such property and support said accounting with receipted bills or vouchers in order to show the alleged debts so paid were lawful debts of said estate and thereafter to produce all the books, records and papers con-*768taming, or believed to contain, evidence relative to the estate of Wise Perry, deceased, which are in the possession or control of the defendant for inspection by the plaintiff before and use at the trial of such reasonable terms and conditions as may be'presented by the court in its order on such motion.”
The motion was unverified, did not show that any property of the estate of Wise Perry, deceased, had come into the hands of the defendant Howard Perry, and was entirely insufficient to warrant the court in issuing a blanket order such as was sought.-
The second order complained of was entered upon the motion of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant could not be heard to challenge the correctness of that order on appeal to this Court. When- the notice of appeal was entered, the time had expired within which appeal could have been taken from the order entered March 1, 1940, and recorded March 4, 1940. As the order of July 23, 1940, dismissing the cause was entered at the instance and request of the plaintiff, the appellant here, he cannot be heard to challenge the correctness of such order. See Dorman v. Dorman, 125 Fla. 280, 169 Sou. 867; Marx v. Withers, 119 Fla. 692, 160 Sou. 662; Borst v. Gale, 99 Fla. 376, 126 Sou. 290. The appeal from that order will not serve as the vehicle to bring up for review orders as to which the time for appeal has expired.
It, therefore, follows that the appeal should be dismissed and it is so ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…between the parties has been brought to an end) from which she could appeal, it may be that she is precluded from doing so under the doctrine that a party may not secure review of a judgment entered at his instance and request. See Hawkins v. Perry, 146 Fla. 766, 1 So. 2d 620 (1941); Rubin v. Gordon, 165 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); cf. Lauda v. H.F. Mason Equip. Corp., 407 So. 2d 392, 394 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The manner of our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary further to pursue this possib…
-
Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…4th DCA 1974); Fla.R.App.P. 9.600. The order complained of as to disposition of property rights was, in part, induced by stipulation of the parties. One who has contributed to alleged error will not be heard to complain on appeal. Hawkins v. Perry, 146 Fla. 766, 1 So. 2d 620 (1941); Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment of dissolution of September 29,1978, which is the subject matter…
-
The Cnty. OF Volusia v. Niles, 445 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…nty. Under the doctrine of invited error, a party cannot successfully complain of error for which he is himself responsible, or of rulings that he has invited the trial court to make. Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Hawkins v. Perry, 146 Fla. 766, 1 So. 2d 620 (1941); Hunter v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 427 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Keller Industries, Inc. v. Morgart, 412 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Thus, a litigant may not urge e…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Borst v. Gale, 99 Fla. 376 (Fla. 1930)
- Dorman v. Dorman, 125 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1936)
- Marx v. Withers, 119 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1935)