Doerschuck v. Doerschuck, 85-1668
Decision Date | 05 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1668,85-1668 |
Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 330,481 So.2d 1317 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 330 Georgiana DOERSCHUCK, Appellant, v. Walter J. DOERSCHUCK, Jr., deceased, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Non-final order from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County; Mary E. Lupo, Judge.
David A. Graham, Palm Beach and James P. O'Flarity of Law Offices of James P. O'Flarity, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.
We treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari and deny the petition.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
This case involves a wife who petitioned for dissolution of her marriage. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, her husband died and she filed a suggestion of death and a motion to dismiss the petition. Thereafter the husband's surviving children by another marriage moved to intervene in the divorce proceedings. Pursuant to the foregoing the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted the motion to intervene. This non-final appeal ensued.
The panel found no authority for the proposition that these two non-final orders are appealable; thus the consideration as a petition for certiorari.
There is no question that a trial judge has no option but to terminate a dissolution action upon the death of one of the parties. Messana v. Messana, 421 So.2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Simpson v. Simpson, 473 So.2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Jaris v. Tucker, 414 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 419 So.2d 1198 (Fla.1982); Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So.2d 105 (1944). Thus, the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the action. Sullivan v. Givens, 155 Fla. 445, 20 So.2d 493 (1945).
The court may issue a writ of certiorari only when there is a departure from the essential requirement of the law and no adequate remedy on plenary appeal. Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey & Company, 420 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In the present case, there was a departure from the essential requirements of law. However, there is a remedy available on plenary appeal, notwithstanding that the parties may be exposed to costly, lengthy and unnecessary litigation. Unfortunately, these reasons are not adequate to justify certiorari review. Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
I write solely to point out that all this can be avoided if the trial judge will reconsider her denial of the motion to dismiss, which she can do for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.
...1985) and Canadian Home Insurance Company v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, more recently in Doerschuck v. Doerschuck, 481 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), we reverted to the view expressed in Chalfonte and denied a petition for certiorari seeking review of an order deny......
-
Comisky v. Rosen Management Service, Inc.
...515 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Doerschuck v. Doerschuck, 481 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (Glickstein, J., specially concurring). ...
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Gallant
...Gallant's motion to intervene and stay the proceedings is subject to certiorari review. See Doerschuck v. Doerschuck , 481 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (Glickstein, J., concurring specially); Dep't of Children & Families v. L.D. , 840 So.2d 432, 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Fannie Mae must es......
-
Guardianship of Anderson, In re
...998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Doerschuck v. Doerschuck, 481 So.2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (Glickstein, J., specially concurring). We can see no reason why the remedy on plenary appeal is not adequate here under the standard of th......