Lesperance v. Lesperance, No. 71--329
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Before SWANN; BARKDULL |
| Citation | 257 So.2d 66 |
| Parties | Loretta LESPERANCE, Appellant, v. Don E. LESPERANCE, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 71--329 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1971 |
Page 66
v.
Don E. LESPERANCE, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1972.
Page 67
Lurie & Goethel, Miami, for appellant.
Street & Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.
Before SWANN, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
BARKDULL, Judge.
After the previous decision of this court in Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 859, cert. denied 238 So.2d 429, Don E. Lesperance instituted an action for partition of the real property owned by the parties as tenants in common. After the partition suit became ripe for final adjudication, Don Lesperance appeared before the trial court in the partition suit (he was before the same trial court in the partition suit as in the original cancellation and rescission action and the causes were apparently consolidated) and sought a number of things: First, to discharge his lawyers; second, to dismiss the partition suit; and third, to have the Prior final order entered in the cancellation and rescission suit vacated because of alleged fraud on the court.
The matter came on before the trial court for consideration. Counsel for the appellant, Loretta Lesperance, conceded that the attorneys for Don Lesperance were entitled to a charging lien and stipulated that if the parties could not agree on a fee that the trial court should fix one. A joint order was filed in both causes adjudicating a charging lien in favor of counsel for Don Lesperance upon the assets involved. 1 Don Lesperance then conveyed his interest in the property to the appellant, giving her the entire property. The trial court held this conveyance was subject to the attorneys' lien. The parties could not agree as to the amount of fee. The matter came on for hearing before the trial court. He fixed the amount of fee, subjected the property to the lien, dismissed the partition suit, and denied the motion to vacate the original final judgment entered in the cancellation and rescission cause, which was presented to him by motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. This was done by joint order filed in both causes.
A notice of appeal was filed in the companion cases and the only point urged for reversal in the appellant's brief (and therefore the only point preserved for review, Chaachou v. Chaachou, Fla.1961, 135 So.2d 206; Weisman v. Weisman, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 622;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., No. 98-389
...added). An error not raised in the brief is waived. Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 (Fla.1961); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Williams failed to raise this issue in her brief. Thus, the order denying intervention must be affirmed as to B. Mohr The d......
-
State v. Overton, No. 3D07-85.
...State argues that once the mandate was issued, the trial court lost jurisdiction to vacate its order. See, e.g., Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (trial court has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain motion to vacate its judgment already affirmed on appeal with......
-
Atrio Consol. Industries, Inc. v. Southeast Bank, No. 82-2688
...Edwin W. Peck, Inc., 381 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Truxell v. Truxell, 259 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). No other points were presented for review and therefore any issue relating to other rulings are We find no error in the e......
-
Advanced Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr., Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., No. 4D11–4801.
...Morris Cos., 743 So.2d 24, 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ( citing Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 (Fla.1961); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)). Here, United waived the evidentiary deficiencies relied upon by the circuit court to reverse by not raising objectio......
-
Ramos v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., No. 98-389
...added). An error not raised in the brief is waived. Chaachou v. Chaachou, 135 So.2d 206, 221 (Fla.1961); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Williams failed to raise this issue in her brief. Thus, the order denying intervention must be affirmed as to B. Mohr The d......
-
State v. Overton, No. 3D07-85.
...State argues that once the mandate was issued, the trial court lost jurisdiction to vacate its order. See, e.g., Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (trial court has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain motion to vacate its judgment already affirmed on appeal with......
-
Atrio Consol. Industries, Inc. v. Southeast Bank, No. 82-2688
...Edwin W. Peck, Inc., 381 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Truxell v. Truxell, 259 So.2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). No other points were presented for review and therefore any issue relating to other rulings are We find no error in the e......
-
Ohio Cas. Group v. Parrish, No. 50609
...it followed the position it had previously taken in State v. Anderson, 157 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), and Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The Lesperance court enunciated the rationale for its holding when it After the opinion and mandate of this court was rende......