IN RE HASKIN'S ESTATE. HASKIN
v.
HASKIN 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.
Alice Littig Siems claimed entitlement to the estate of Edwin Easter Haskin based on an alleged agreement to make her his sole beneficiary, and later as his common-law wife. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of her second suit, holding that the prior probate judgment denying her claim operated as res judicata and barred relitigation of the same cause of action.
The first judgment operates as res judicata. A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action by a court of competent jurisdiction estops relitigation of every matter which was offered or could have been properly litigated in that action. Siems's claim as a common-law wife raises no new facts that were not available and could not have been presented in the first case.
“a judgment on the merits, rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action by a court of competent jurisdiction, operates as an estoppel, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action”
Establishes the res judicata doctrine barring relitigation of claims that could have been presented in the first action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwin Easter Haskin died October 23, 1949, a resident of Palm Beach County. Administrators were appointed and Alice Littig Siems filed a claim to 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 Claim Against Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Edwin Easter Haskin, a resident of Palm Beach County, died October 23, 1949. On petition of his surviving brother and sister, J. K. Williams .and George W. Coleman were appointed administrators of his estate. Notice to creditors was given and appellant filed claim to the entire estate on the theory that during his lifetime, for a valuable consideration, deceased agreed to make a will naming her his sole beneficiary. The administrators petitioned the court to determine the beneficiaries pursuant to Section 734.25, Florida Statutes 1949, F.S.A. On final hearing the probate judge entered the following order:
“3. That the respondent Alice Lit-tig Siems has no valid claim against the estate of the Decedent, said respondent is not a beneficiary of the estate of Decedent and said respondent is not entitled to any distribution of all or any part of the assets left by the Decedent.
“4. That the Decedent’s sister, Loraine Haskin Evans and his brother, Walter E. Haskin, are the only heirs at law and next of kin of Decedent and the only beneficiaries of the estate of Decedent * * *
Said order was affirmed by the Circuit Court and the judgment of the Circuit Court was, on appeal, affirmed by this Court. In re Estate of Haskins, Fla., 56 So. 2d 723, hereinafter referred to as the first judgment.
March 30, 1952, appellant instituted this proceeding in the Circuit Court, praying for declaratory decree to determine that plaintiff Alice Littig Siems Haskin was the wife of Edwin E. Haskin at the time of his decease. The administrators answered, denying the material allegations of the petition and moved for summary judgment. At hearing on the latter motion, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and held that the Probate Court had sole jurisdiction. Appellant then moved to revoke order for appointment of administrators. The Probate Court dismissed the petition with prejudice. This order was, on appeal, affirmed by the Circuit Court and will hereinafter be referred to as the second judgment, from which we are confronted with an appeal.
The real point for determination is whether or not the first judgment is res adjudicata as to the point raised in the present appeal.
We think the question is concluded by Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456, wherein we held that a judgment on the merits, rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action by a court of competent jurisdiction, operates as an estoppel, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action. See also Caldwell, for Use And Benefit of Hawkins v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 158 Fla. 677, 29 So. 2d 694; Wolfson v. Rubin, Fla., 52 So. 2d 344.
The first judgment held that the brother and sister of deceased were entitled to his estate; that appellant had no valid claim to it whatever. In the present suit she claims said estate as the common-law wife of deceased but the facts to establish her claim are no different from what they were or could have been in the first case. In fact, nothing is presented in the second case that might not have been properly presented and settled in the first case.
The judgment is affirmed on authority of the cases cited.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorman K. Kimbrell, Jr. v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984)…which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action. Id. at 829,114 So. at 552 (citations omitted). See also In re Haskin’s Estate, 63 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1953); Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456 (1940); Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1982). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and answer the certi…
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…tle suit could not have been resolved without addressing the validity of the contract for which Hay later sought specific performance. The supreme court has never applied res judicata in a way that alters the holding of Hay. In re Haskin’s Estate, 63 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1953), involved a probate proceeding where Alice Siems filed a claim to the entire estate on the theory that the decedent had promised during his lifetime to make Siems his sole beneficiary. A final probate court order determined that Siems ha…
-
Gold v. Bankier, 840 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…t valuation at the time she objected to probate. Res judicata bars not only those issues that were subject to adjudication on the merits but also bars those issues that could have properly been included in the same action. See In re Haskin’s Estate, 63 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla.1953). But, as we have shown, the petition for removal could not have been properly brought in the initial action, because the facts upon which it relies are entirely different from those upon which the objection to probate were based. Ha…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lucius Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1940)
- Wolfson v. Rubin, 52 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1951)
- Millard F. Caldwell v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 158 Fla. 677 (Fla. 1947)