Ellison v. Riddle, 3992
| Decision Date | 07 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3992,3992 |
| Citation | 166 So.2d 840 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Andrew ELLISON, Thomas McGinty, Jr., and American Title Insurance Company, a Florida corporation, Appellants, and James S. Hunt et al., Joinder-Appellants, v. David L. RIDDLE, Title & Trust Company of Florida, a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
John W. Stanford, of English, McCaughan & O'Bryan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
George A. Patterson, of Patterson & Maloney, and Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore, Fort Lauderdale, for joinder-appellants.
Harry T. Gray and Francis P. Conroy, of Marks, Gray, Yates, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
We refer to the appellants as the Ellison group, the joinder-appellants as the Hunt group, and the appellees as the Riddle group. The Hunt group initiated this action by filing a complaint in the trial court against the Ellison and Riddle groups seeking either a determination in the nature of an interpleader or a declaratory decree in connection with their efforts to sell a block of controlling corporate stock.
The Ellison group counterclaimed against the Hunt group and cross-claimed against the Riddle group claiming the right to buy from either group all or one-half of the stock involved.
After the pleadings had resolved the issues the court heard the testimony of the parties. A final decree was entered in favor of the Riddle group and against the Ellison group as to the stock purchase rights. The Hunt group received the total price of the stock so sold, but the court denied their prayer for costs and attorney's fees.
The Ellison group appealed. The Hunt group filed a joinder in appeal and separate assignments of error which involved only the denial of costs and attorney's fees.
The facts, as stated by the parties, are extremely lengthy and no one of the groups agrees with the facts as stated by any one of the other groups. A recital of the myriad of complicated and confused actions and reactions which occurred between the parties in their multiple negotiations for the stock in question would require the filling of many pages without the serving of any useful purpose.
The existing law of Florida as to the maintenance of an action in the nature of an interpleader was expanded when Rule 3.13 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure was adopted in 1962, 3u F.S.A. Even though an interpleader action may be maintained under this rule, it does not necessarily follow that in every such action the court must award costs and attorney's fees to the interpleading plaintiff. In order to be entitled to such an award the plaintiff must prove his total disinterest in the stake he holds other than that of bringing it into court so that conflicting claims thereto can be judicially determined. The plaintiff must also show he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katsaris v. U.S.
...held and has not acted to cause the conflicting claims. Drummond Title Company v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606 (Fla.1955); Ellison v. Riddle, 166 So.2d 840 (Fla.App.1964). Similar principles are applicable in Federal interpleader actions. And although the award of the stakeholder's costs and atto......
-
Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, s. 73--217
...See Keck v. Schumacher, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 39; Greiner v. General Electric Credit Corp., Fla.App., 215 So.2d 61; Ellison v. Riddle, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 840; Kislak v. Kreedian, Fla., 95 So.2d 510; Russell v. Thielen, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 143; Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc......
-
Rafter v. Miami Gables Realty, Inc., s. 82-430
...322 So.2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc. v. Witous, 411 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Ellison v. Riddle, 166 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). A plaintiff in interpleader is not entitled to attorneys' fees unless he establishes that his conduct meets certain standards.......
-
Brock v. Bowein
...action for interpleader. See Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc. v. Witous, 411 So.2d 1324, 1326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Ellison v. Riddle, 166 So.2d 840, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Rainess, 81 So.3d at 514–15;Rafter v. Miami Gables Realty, Inc., 428 So.2d 351, 352–54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).C. The Compul......