MOSHE KREMNITZER, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTHER KREMNITZER AND HENRY KREMNITZER, APPELLEES
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.
Moshe Kremnitzer appealed an order denying his petition to intervene in a dissolution case and ordering a partial disbursement of funds from a property sale. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying intervention and in distributing funds before ownership was determined.
The trial court erred in denying the petition to intervene and in ordering a partial distribution of the fund before the ownership question was resolved. The proper procedure required allowing intervention and staying distribution pending resolution of Kremnitzer's ownership claim.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a petition to intervene when the intervenor has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
[2] A trial court commits error by ordering a partial distribution of funds before the ownership of those funds has been determined.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court committed error in denying the petition to intervene and in proceeding with a partial distribution.”
States the core holding that the trial court's denial of intervention was erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKremnitzer sold property over which he held power of attorney, though title was in Henry Kremnitzer's name (Esther's former husband). The sale proceed…
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 Disbursement Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
[*73] PER CURIAM.
Moshe Kremnitzer, who attempted to intervene in this cause in the trial court, appeals an order which denied his petition to intervene, denied a stay of the proceedings and ordered a partial disbursement of $5,000, plus interest, to the attorney for appellee Esther Kremnitzer from a fund created by the sale of real property.
The fund was created by stipulation when the appellant sold property over which he had power of attorney but the title of which was in the name of Henry Kremnitzer, the former husband of Esther Kremnitzer. The appellant brought a suit claiming that the proceeds of the sale were his property. Appellee Esther Kremnitzer, in the dissolution action, sought an order to subject the fund to her claims under the final judgment of dissolution. The appellant sought an order allowing him to intervene in the proceedings and to stay the proceedings concerning the ownership of the fund until the disposition of his independent suit. Intervention was denied and a partial distribution ordered. Subsequently, the trial court did stay further disbursement, pending disposition of the appellant’s claim of ownership. That portion of the appeal is, therefore, moot.
The trial court committed error in denying the petition to intervene and in proceeding with a partial distribution. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210(a). See also Metropolitan Dade County v. Outrigger Club, Inc., 314 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). It also follows that the trial judge erroneously ordered the partial distribution before the ownership of the fund was decided.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Marriage of Edward N. Claughton, Jr. v. Claughton, 625 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…e to the ongoing marriage and contrary to public policy. Compare Adler v. Adler, 365 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (third party allowed to intervene in divorce proceeding to attack conveyance of property as fraudulent), and Kremnitzer v. Kremnitzer, 358 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (third party who had power of attorney over property held in husband’s name and who had sued to recover proceeds of sale of that property allowed to intervene in divorce proceeding). We likewise find no abuse of discretion in the…
Authorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Outrigger Club, Inc., 314 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)