Kyle v. Kyle
| Decision Date | 11 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 31435,31435 |
| Citation | 139 So.2d 885 |
| Parties | V. I. KYLE, a/k/a DeValmont Ivan Kyle, a/k/a Valmont Ivan Kyle, Petitioner, v. Gladys KYLE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Buckley & Bland and Ronald N. Johnson, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris and Davis W. Duke, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
By a petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, appearing at 128 So.2d 427 on the alleged ground that it conflicts with a prior decision of this Court on the same point of law.
We dispose of the matter on jurisdiction grounds without reaching the merits.
It is unnecessary to summarize the facts. Resort may be had to the cited decision of the Court of Appeal for an accurate factual statement. The Court of Appeal was called upon to decide 'whether the antenuptial agreement, validly executed in Canada without witnesses, should be deemed, by application of Canadian law, as operative in Florida with respect to dower in Florida realty.' That court concluded that witnesses to the execution of the instrument were necessary to its validity.
Petitioner here contends that the decision under review collided with the prior decision of this Court in Northern Trust Co. v. King et al., 149 Fla. 611, 6 So.2d 539. The asserted conflict allegedly derives from the language of the Northern Trust Co. decision to the effect that the antenuptial contract there should be construed 'to withhold from the intended wife completely, absolutely and unconditionally any claim of dower or other interest in the estate of the other contracting party.'
In distinguishing the instant case from Northern Trust Co. the Court of Appeal explored the original file of the latter case lodged in this Court. The investigation revealed that the agreement in Northern Trust Co. was unwitnessed and in addition, that only personal property was involved. We think it was unnecessary to develop these factual characteristics of Northern Trust Co. for the reason that it is distinguishable from the instant case on the face of the opinion.
In concluding that we have no jurisdiction to review the instant decision on the 'conflict theory' we repeat what we have written on other occasions. The test of our jurisdiction in such situations is not measured simply by our view regarding the correctness of the Court of Appeal decision. On the contrary, jurisdiction to review because of an alleged conflict requires a preliminary determination as to whether the Court of Appeal has announced a decision on a point of law which, if permitted to stand, would be out of harmony with a prior decision of this Court or another Court of Appeal on the same point, thereby generating confusion and instability among the precedents. We have said that conflict must be such that if the later decision and the earlier decision were rendered by the same Court the former would have the effect of overruling the latter. Ansin v. Thurston, Fla., 101 So.2d 808. If the two cases are distinguishable in controlling factual elements or if the points of law settled by the two cases are not the same, then no conflict can arise. Florida Power and Light Co. v. Bell, Fla., 113 So.2d 697; Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So.2d 731.
When we apply the standards for determination of jurisdiction which we have catalogued in the cited cases, the absence of conflict between the instant case and Northern Trust Co. becomes apparent. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finney v. State
...not at issue in this case, we note that the first basis of conflict jurisdiction announced in Nielsen was explained in Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So.2d 885 (Fla.1962). Where a decision of the court is so disharmonious with a prior decision by the court on the same point and generates confusion and i......
-
Grand Jury Investigation, In re
...no question of standing. There was no question of standing at all in Guyton, supra, because Guyton wasn't even a criminal case.15 139 So.2d 885 (Fla.1962).16 117 So.2d 731 (Fla.1960).17 101 So.2d 808 (Fla.1958).18 See notes 10 and 11, Supra.19 408 U.S. 41, 92 S.Ct. 2357, 33 L.Ed.2d 179 (197......
-
Shapiro v. Associated Intern. Ins. Co., s. 89-5260
...of Swanson, 397 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Kyle v. Kyle, 128 So.2d 427, 429 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961), cert. discharged, 139 So.2d 885 (Fla.1962), and considering Florida's trend toward application of the concepts advanced by the Restatement (Second) as well as the significance of ......
-
Gibson v. Maloney
...has now firmly been established that this Court is without jurisdiction to render a decision in this case. As was stated in Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So.2d 885 (Fla.1962): 'The test of our jurisdiction in such situations is not measured simply by our view regarding the correctness of the Court of A......