MIRIE F. GOODE, PETITIONER,
v.
MOLLYE B. GOODE, RESPONDENT
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 second appeal, the Florida Supreme Court quashes the lower court's order allowing the wife to amend her counterclaim to add a prayer for the husband's properties as lump sum alimony, holding that the prior reversal and remand was limited to allowing re-evaluation of alimony on the existing record, not permitting entirely new claims.
The Court held that the lower court lacked authority to permit such an amendment. The prior reversal and remand was limited to allowing the lower court to re-evaluate the alimony situation in light of the vacated portions of the decree on the existing record, not to permit the filing of new claims that had already been rejected on the merits.
“The former appeal disposed of the question of awarding the property to the wife, in a manner contrary to her contentions made on appeal and below. We held that under the circumstances shown by the record she was not entitled to such property.”
Establishes that the prior decision had already resolved the property award issue against the wife, preventing reconsideration through amendment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a divorce proceeding between Mirie F. Goode (husband) and Mollye B. Goode (wife). In the first appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed t…
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 Alimony Award Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. In the appeal from the final decree entered in favor of the wife, •sqpra, we affirmed that portion of the decree granting a divorce to the wife on her counterclaim but reversed that part of the .•decree relating to alimony, attorney fees, and costs of suit because it appeared “that the decree went too far in respect to the award granted.” Goode v. Goode, Fla.1954, 76 So. 2d 794, 796. The opinion discussed at length the conditions under which lump sum awards should be made and • quoted from Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164, 33 So. 2d 869; Id., Fla., 39 So. 2d 554, 556, particularly with reference to that portion of the decree which awarded the wife one-half interest in certain properties owned by the parties as tenants in common. The opinion concluded with a reversal of the cause “for such further proceedings with reference to the claim for alimony as may conform with law and the principles herein stated.”
Subsequent to the filing of the .mandate in the lower court the wife applied for leave to amend her counterclaim with reference to her claim for alimony by inclusion of a prayer for awarding her the properties of the husband as permanent or lump sum alimony, which prayer was supported by pertinent new allegations. The order of the lower court, dated March 4, 1955, which allowed this amendment is the basis for this certiorari proceedings brought by the husband.
The former appeal disposed of the question of awarding the property to the wife, in a manner contrary to her contentions made on appeal and below. We held that under the circumstances shown by the record she was not entitled to such property. We reversed the cause on this question alone and remanded it for the purpose of allowing the lower court to enter an appropriate order, on the record then before him. In view of our vacating a portion of the decree theretofore entered, orderly procedure required that the lower court have an opportunity to re-evaluate the situation in that light.
On the question of alimony in cases of this nature see Kahn v. Kahn, Fla. 1955, 78 So. 2d 367.
Certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed and the amendment stricken.
TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bredin v. Bredin, 103 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1958)…ot a situation where one of the parties undertakes to amend his original pleadings in order to obtain relief contrary to the mandate of this court entered prior to the attempted amendment. This was the situation apparent in Goode v. Goode, Fla.1955, 80 So. 2d 904, which is relied upon by the appellee. In Davis v. Battle, 140 Fla. 778, 192 So. 607, we held under the circumstances there obtaining that when a decree was reversed and remanded for further proceedings it was not error for the Chancellor to permit…
Authorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1955)
- Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1948)
- Mirle F. Goode v. Mollye B. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1954)