Finston v. Finston
| Decision Date | 12 November 1948 |
| Citation | 37 So.2d 423,160 Fla. 935 |
| Parties | FINSTON v. FINSTON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Leonard G. Egert and Loftin, Anderson, Scott, McCarthy & Preston, all of Miami, for petitioner.
Patton & Kanner, of Miami, for respondent.
In a suit brought for that purpose the parties to this cause were divorced and property rights at issue between them were adjudicated March 30, 1948. Finston v. Finston, 34 So.2d 745, not yet reported in Florida Reports.
In August 1948 respondent filed a petition for supplementary final decree in the same cause, wherein he seeks to require petitioner to release her rights as beneficiary in certain insurance policies upon respondent's life, to execute a waiver of her right in a tax refund of approximately $8000.00 which the United States Government has credited to her, and further require her to account for the disposition of certain personal property, household furnishings and books which had been in storage for several years. A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of res adjudicata was overruled. That order is here for review under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court.
The primary point for determination is whether or not the property rights which respondent seeks to bring in issue in this case were adjudicated in Finston v. Finston, Fla., 34 So.2d 745.
We think this question requires an affirmative answer. The rule seems well settled that a final decree in an equity suit settles all property rights of the parties and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights. Knabb v. Duner, et al., 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456; Town of Boca Raton v Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 So. 279; Zellner v Zellner, 155 Kan. 530, 127 P.2d 428. See also Section 63.35, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., requiring counterclaims to be set up in the original suit. It further appears from the pleadings in the main suit that the property rights in question were before the Court when the final decree was entered and were adjudicated, so the doctrine of res adjudicata was a proper defense to raise here and should have been permitted.
Respondent contends that since the Circuit Court retained jurisdiction of the cause 'for the purpose of making such further orders herein as may be found necessary to carry out the purposes and objects of the decree,' he purposely reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate property and other rights that may arise in connection with the case.
The only effect of reserving jurisdiction in this manner is to promulgate such orders as are necessary to effectuate the judgment but this does not make it any less a final judgment. The application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dieujuste
...of dissolution of marriage under any and all circumstances." 400 So.2d at 982. Relying on this Court's decisions in Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423 (Fla.1948) and Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So.2d 881 (Fla.1954), the district court below concluded that such rights are finally settle......
-
Donner v. Donner
...258 So.2d 304; Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 53; McEachin v. McEachin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 894; Finston v. Finston, Fla. 1948, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423. In the Finston case, Mr. Justice Terrell wrote the 'The rule seems well settled that a final decree in an equity sui......
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 4-86-1881
...to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in the judgment of dissolution. Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423 (1948); Simon v. Simon, 293 So.2d 780 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Property rights not adjudicated on dissolution can be determined later when j......
-
McCutcheon v. Tracy
...option to purchase the marital home conferred a vested property right which was not subject to modification. See also Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423 (1948); Neal v. Neal, 403 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Thus, I agree with the majority that the parties' agreement, includin......