Watkins v. Johnson
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2 (Fla. 1939) |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1939 |
| Parties | WATKINS et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1939.
Suit by Lillian J. Watkins, as executrix of the last will and testament of J. D. Watkins, deceased, and the Commercial Bank & Trust Company, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of J. D. Watkins, deceased, against Mrs. W. C Johnson, the Phifer State Bank and others to have the circuit court assume jurisdiction of and administer on the estate of J. D. Watkins, deceased, on ground that it was insolvent, and on ground that the Phifer State Bank, a judgment creditor of the estate of J. D. Watkins, deceased, had levied on certain lands and that if the sale was not enjoined, the lands would be bought by the Phifer State Bank at a nominal price and assets of great value would be lost to the estate. An agreement was reached by the parties for a compromise settlement of the claims of creditors against the estate of J. D. Watkins, deceased. The proposed settlement was approved by the circuit court. Thereafter, the Phifer State Bank filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings. The circuit court made and entered an order dismissing the suit. Thereafter, the complainants filed a petition to vacate the order dismissing the suit. From an order denying the petition to vacate and set aside the order dismissing the suit, the complainants appeal.
Order reversed.
On Petition for Rehearing. Appeal from Circuit Court, Alachua County; H. L. Sebring, judge.
Frank R. Greene, of Ocala, for appellants.
Adkins & Arnow, J. C. Adkins, and Winston E. Arnow all of Gainesville, for appellees.
On December 6, 1927, J. D. Watkins died testate in Alachua County, Florida, and his will was probated in the County Judge's Court of Alachua County, and Lillian J. Watkins was appointed and qualified as Executrix, and the Commercial Bank & Trust Company was appointed as Administrator, with the will annexed. The customary notice to creditors to file claims was published and the period of time allowed by law therefor expired in December, 1929, and the following claims were filed:
| Phifer State Bank, two notes | |
| aggregating | $ 10,000.00 |
| First National Bank of Gainesville | |
| (liability as endorser) | 4,000.00 |
| Florida National Bank of | |
| Jacksonville, note of J. D. | |
| Watkins for $20,000.00 on which | |
| $4,000.00 principal had been | |
| paid ........................... | 16,000.00 |
| Florida National Bank, note of | |
| J. D. Watkins for $7,500.00, | |
| balance of principal ........... | 7,273.38 |
| Carrie E. Watkins, John W. | |
| Barr ........................... | 377,489.72 |
| ----------- | |
| $414,763.10 |
The Phifer State Bank, on December 18, 1929, instituted suit in the Circuit Court of Alachua County against the estate and a default judgment in the sum of $12,298.60, including principal, interest and attorneys' fees, was entered on March 8, 1930, against the Executrix and Administrator of the Estate. The writ of execution on the judgment was sent to Duval County, Florida, and a levy was made upon real estate at that time standing in the name of J. D. Watkins, and the same was advertised and sold, and title thereto taken in the name of the Phifer State Bank. The writ of execution was then delivered to the Sheriff of Alachua County, and a levy thereunder made against certain lands situated in Alachua County appearing in the name of J. D. Watkins, and the sale advertised to be held on the 3d day of November, 1930.
The representatives of the Watkins Estate, on October 27, 1930, filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, against the Phifer State Bank and the Sheriff of Alachua County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5653, C.G.L., and suggested the insolvency of said estate and prayed that the Circuit Court of Alachua County assume jurisdiction thereof and administer upon the same as an insolvent estate. The bill of complaint recited that the lands levied upon by the Phifer State Bank, a judgment creditor, were of greater value than the amount of the judgment and that the estate had no funds, nor was it able to raise money because of the condition of the real estate market in 1930, and that if the sale was not enjoined, the lands would be sold and bought by the Phifer State Bank, a judgment creditor, at a nominal price and the asset of great value would be lost to the estate, and the Phifer State Bank unjustly enriched and unlawfully preferred over other creditors of the estate. Other allegations appeared in the bill of complaint so as to show a substantial compliance with all the requirements of Section 5653, C.G.L. All the then known creditors of the estate were made parties defendant.
Upon hearing of the application for temporary injunction against the sale of the property under the execution, the Honorable A. V. Long, Circuit Judge, entered an order restraining the sale.
Pursuant to negotiations of counsel for the Watkins Estate and creditors thereof, an agreement was reached, and petition drafted and presented to the Honorable A. V. Long, Circuit Judge, on November 30, 1931, seeking an order permitting and approving a compromise settlement of the claims of the creditors against the Watkins estate. The proposed settlement as described in the petition was approved on November 30, 1931, by Honorable A. V. Long, Circuit Judge.
On the 20th day of April, 1935, the Phifer State Bank filed its motion to dismiss the proceedings to administer upon the estate and to restrain the sale of the Alachua County property under the writ of execution of the Phifer State Bank against Lillie J. Watkins et al. on the grounds: (a) that the suit was filed on October 27, 1930; (b) Phifer State Bank filed its answer thereto on October 29, 1930; (c) petition for compromise settlement and an order approving the same was made October 28, 1931, and the compromise settlement had not been carried out; (d) the complainants had not taken any steps to bring the cause to a final hearing for more than three years past; (e) the motion to dismiss was filed under Section 14554, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1929, Ex. Sess.
It was made to appear under the compromise plan that the Phifer State Bank received the initial payment of $1,000 and a conveyance of real property to it situated at Micanopy, and a reconveyance by the bank to the representatives of the estate of certain real estate situated in Duval County obtained at execution sale, and that the depression had rendered it impossible to carry out the compromise settlement among creditors as approved by the Circuit Court of Alachua County.
On the 20th day of April, 1935, Honorable H. L. Sebring, Circuit Judge, made and entered an order dismissing the suit filed on October 27, 1930, under Chapter 14554, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1929, Ex. Sess., upon the theory, no doubt, that it was a chancery proceeding and controlled thereby.
On September 7, 1936, complainants filed a petition to vacate the order dated April 20, 1935, dismissing the proceedings, and it was cited in the petition to vacate said order that the compromise settlement existing between the estate and the Phifer State Bank had been in part performed and the compromise settlement, in part, had been carried out by the parties and that the agreement was legally binding on them. The petition further recited that financial conditions were improving and a negotiation was pending for the sale of six hundred acres of land at a price of $20 per acre and if the trade went through, the compromise settlement between the Watkins Estate and the Phifer State Bank could be fully performed. The petition further recited that the order of dismissal dated April 20, 1935, was predicated on Chapter 14554, supra, and controls equity and common law suits, but the same is inapplicable to the case at bar because the same is a proceeding in the administration of the Watkins Estate pursuant to Section 5653, C.G.L., and the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction or power to enter the order of dismissal dated April 20, 1935.
On February 8, 1937, the Honorable H. L. Sebring made and entered an order denying the petition to vacate and set aside the order dated April 20, 1935.
The case at bar turns on the point of whether or not the suit filed in the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, on October 27, 1930, is an equity suit and controlled by Chapter 14554, supra, or a suit filed pursuant to Section 5653, C.G.L., and brought for the purpose of administering the Watkins Estate alleged to be insolvent. The lower court held the same was an equity suit controlled by Chapter 14554 and not a suit brought pursuant to Section 5653, C.G.L., for the purpose of administering an insolvent estate.
We think the bill of complaint contained, substantially, the allegations required by Section 5653, C.G.L., and that the order restraining the sale of the property of the Watkins Estate under the writ of execution based on the judgment in behalf of the Phifer State Bank was proper and without error. While a partial administration of the estate was had in the County Judges' Court of Alachua County, Florida, and that court had full and complete jurisdiction to administer thereon until the filing of the bill in chancery by the representatives thereof containing allegations required by Section 5653, C.G.L., coupled with the petition of the representatives of the estate filed in the Circuit Court of November 28, 1931, and the order thereon dated November 30 1931, had the effect in law of transferring from the County Judge's Court of Alachua County, Florida, the administration of said probable insolvent estate of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. MacClenny Turpentine Co.
...then the order of the Circuit Court is a mere brutum fulmen and controlled by Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 So. 753; Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2. It is recognized that the organization of a drainage district cannot be collaterally attacked. See 28 C.J.S., Drains, pp. 33......
-
State ex rel. Neafie v. Butler
...may be collaterally attacked within the rule of this court enunciated in Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 So. 753, and Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2. It is generally recognized that where a mandamus proceeding has been heard and decided on its merits, the judgment rendered i......
-
Palmer v. Palmer, 85-875
...fact and subject to reversal on appeal, are nevertheless not void. See DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984); Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2 (1939); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926); Chang v. Chang, 469 So.2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Space Coast Credit U......
-
Napoleon B. Broward Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes Were Due
... ... 2; ... Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Hogan [102 Fla. 196], 135 So ... 825; Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677. * * ... Watkins v ... Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2, 5: 'A judgment ... that is absolutely null and void--a mere brutum fulmen--can ... be set aside or ... ...