Slatcoff v. Dezen
| Decision Date | 11 May 1954 |
| Citation | 72 So.2d 800 |
| Parties | SLATCOFF v. DEZEN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ginsberg & Pelle, Miami, for petitioner.
Englander & Hoffman, Miami Beach, for Max Dezen.
Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, Miami, for Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Ft. Wayne, Ind.
On the 9th day of October, 1952, Lucille Slatcoff secured a judgment in the sum of $36,123 against Max Dezen in a common law action filed as Case No. 26451 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida. Subsequent to the rendition of said judgment and on the 24th day of July, 1953, the attorney for Lucille Slatcoff filed a garnishment affidavit in the same common law action No. 26451, wherein Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, was named as garnishee.
Answer was filed by the garnishee in which, among other things, it was admitted that the said Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. had re-insured and become liable upon certain life insurance policies on the life of Max Dezen, issued by Reliance Life Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. One of these policies was taken out on January 10, 1936, and the other on March 1, 1939. The answer averred that the cash surrender value of the first of these policies had it been presented for cancellation July 24, 1953, would have been the sum of $1,287.61, and on the same date had the other policy been presented for cancellation its cash surrender value would have been $18,962.17, but that neither of said policies was either presented or surrendered for payment of the cash surrender value. The answer of the garnishee also contained an averment that the garnishee had been advised 'that, by virtue of the Statutes of the State of Florida in effect at the time of the service of said writ of garnishment and at the time of filing of this answer, proceeds and benefits of a policy of life insurance are exempt from the claims of creditors of the insured or of the beneficiary or beneficiaries.'
A motion was made by counsel for petitioner to strike the above quoted part of the answer because 'same is a conclusion of law, is immaterial, irrelevant and fails to state a legal defense.' At a hearing before the circuit judge on the 12th day of October, 1953, the court denied said motion to strike and further ordered and adjudged 'that the Writ of Garnishment heretofore brought by the Plaintiff, Lucille Slatcoff, against the Garnishees, the Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and the Reliance Life Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, be and the same is hereby dissolved, and the garnishee discharged from this cause.' (Italics supplied.)
The first matter which we must determine is whether the above order, which, by the petition for certiorari herein, petitioner seeks to have quashed, was a final judgment and therefore appealable only. We have decided to deviate from our customary but not inflexible rule and write an opinion in this case, albeit our conclusion compels a judgment denying the petition for certiorari, because of the apparent need for further clarification in this area of the law.
The petition filed herein is for the common law writ of certiorari. We have repeatedly held that such a writ will not issue from this court if the order sought to be quashed is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...recognized test for determining the finality of a judgment, which is "whether the judicial labor is at an end." Slatcoff v. Dezen , 72 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla.1954). Accord Financial International LifeInsurance Co. v. Beta Trust Corporation, Ltd. , 405 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) ; The Trav......
-
State v. Berryhill
...the "judicial labor [wa]s at an end" with regard to that charge. State v. Burrill, 312 So.2d 1, 3 (Miss.1975) (quoting Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla.1954)). ¶11 That said, we proceed to the merits of the State's 1. Timeliness ¶12 The State first appeals the trial court's decisio......
-
Delaney v. State, 34541
...that the finality of a judgment is generally measured by whether it marks an end to the judicial labor in the cause. Slatcoff v. Dezen, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 800; State v. Barone, Fla.1960, 124 So.2d 490. It is true, as the State points out, that if any one of a number of circumstances occurs ......
-
Pruitt v. Brock
...recognized test for determining the finality of a judgment, which is "whether the judicial labor is at an end." Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla.1954). Accord Financial International Life Insurance Co. v. Beta Trust Corporation, Ltd., 405 So.2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); The Traveler......