DYKES
v.
DYKES 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.
In this Florida Supreme Court case, the appellant sought to cancel an agreement and obtain an accounting. The trial court dismissed the complaint without notice or hearing, in violation of the parties' stipulation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellant was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal.
The appellant was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the complaint could be dismissed. The trial court's dismissal without such notice and opportunity was improper and reversible error.
“Appellant was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissing the complaint.”
States the fundamental procedural right violated by the trial court's action.
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 complaint seeking cancellation and annulment of an agreement (Exhibit A) and an accounting. The appellees filed three separate m…
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant as complainant filed complaint in the Circuit Court in which he prayed that a certain agreement marked Exhibit “A” attached to the complaint be cancelled and annulled,.-that an -accounting be had and for such other and -further relief in the premises as the court may deem proper. The defendants, appellees, filed three separate motions-fo dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action or that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Counsel for all parties signed a stipulation as provided by 31 F.S.A. Equity Rule 7(d) that the cause set for hearing before the chancellor at 10 o’clock A. M. August 14, 1953, be postponed to a future date to be agreed on by counsel for the respective parties.’ Two months after filing said stipulation, the chancellor dismissed the complaint with prejudice, without notice of hearing, without argument,’ and in violation of the stipulation.
As reason for dismissing the Complaint, the chancellor stated that it “appears that the bill seeks rescission of an agreement in which the plaintiff’s testate sought to-obtain an unfair advantage in a divorce case then pending against her husband, by making it appear that the assets described in said agreement were' not owned by' her, A court of equity will not lend its aid in such circumstances. The bill cannot be amended.” . We are confronted with an appeal from this order. .
Appellant was entitled to notice and opportunity to be. heard before dismissing the complaint. Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So. 2d 165.
The judgment.is reversed on authority of the last-cited case;
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nystrom v. Nystrom, 105 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…ture Exchange v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109, 162 So. 483; Eagle v. Carr, 153 Fla. 224, 14 So. 2d 268; Feuer v. Feuer, 156 Fla. 117, 22 So. 2d 641; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Lake County Citrus Sales, Fla. 1950, 48 So. 2d 922; Dykes v. Dykes, Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 171. Whatever the situation formerly, it is not now to be doubted that the reference of an entire controversy to a master is a substantial matter and one entitling a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard. When the failure to accord a party suc…
Authorities Cited
- Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1941)