Roy H. Chapman

In this case, a wife filed for separate maintenance unconnected with divorce in Florida circuit court after her husband left her and returned to New Jersey, alleging he failed to provide support despite his financial ability. The trial court awarded her $3,900 annually in maintenance plus $4,000 in attorney fees, along with temporary support orders that were later adjusted based on her claimed lack of resources. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the grant of separate maintenance but reversed the attorney fees award, remanding for a new hearing on the amount of support and fees. The core reasoning was that the wife had undisclosed assets including diamonds valued at $5,000-$6,000 and bank accounts, which undermined prior temporary orders and required reassessment of fees and support with opportunity for the husband to participate and cross-examine if he paid accrued amounts.

family law

Dade County filed suit seeking to enjoin its Tax Collector from issuing an occupational license to sell liquor at retail to the Rauzins at a site outside any municipality and within 2500 feet of a school and churches, in violation of a county zoning resolution. The Rauzins had previously obtained a writ of mandamus from the Florida Supreme Court directing the State Beverage Director to approve the license transfer, and the trial court dismissed the county's complaint on grounds of prior adjudication. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that determinations of whether a location complies with zoning resolutions are judicial questions reserved for courts under the state constitution, while the Beverage Director's role is limited to ministerial tasks such as measurements, and the Director lacks authority to adjudicate the validity of local zoning measures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a 1939 Florida divorce decree and accompanying property settlement stipulation that required the husband to maintain a house for his ex-wife and son, with the son's interest vesting upon the father's death or remarriage, among other support obligations. Years later, the husband mortgaged the property to First Federal Savings & Loan without the lender discovering the prior interests. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the trial court's ruling that the recorded divorce decree and stipulation, combined with the ex-wife's possession of the home, provided the lender with constructive and implied actual notice of those interests, binding the mortgage to them.

family lawproperty

The case concerned the estate of Charles E. Williams, whose 1943 will left a bequest to Faith Temple, Inc., or its successor for broadcasting the gospel, with a provision dividing shares among other named charities if any bequest failed. After Williams's death, a lower court ruled that Faith Temple, Inc., had ceased to exist following a 1944 merger and dissolution, and that Hendricks Avenue Baptist Church was not entitled to the funds as a successor. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the will demonstrated a general charitable intent to support gospel broadcasting and that the cy pres doctrine applied to redirect the bequest to a suitable institution carrying out that purpose. The court relied on precedents allowing redirection of charitable gifts when the designated recipient no longer exists, provided the testator's broader intent could be fulfilled. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to implement the redirected distribution.

property

In Davis v. Dunn, buyers of a Florida home sued the sellers to rescind the sale and cancel a purchase-money mortgage after discovering heavy termite infestation months after closing, alleging that the sellers' real estate broker had fraudulently misrepresented the property as termite-free. The buyers had paid part cash and executed the mortgage; they claimed they relied on the broker's assurances and would not have purchased otherwise. The sellers denied the claims and countersued to foreclose the mortgage. A special master recommended rescission, but the chancellor ruled for the sellers and entered foreclosure. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the buyers had full opportunity to inspect the property or hire an expert before closing but elected not to do so and therefore could not obtain rescission based on the broker's statements.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a divorced father's petition to modify a final divorce decree's child custody provisions, claiming the mother was unfit due to immoral character and that his remarriage allowed him to provide a better home. The lower court, adopting a special master's findings, denied the modification for lack of sufficient changed circumstances but also denied the mother's request for attorney fees to defend against the petition. The Florida Supreme Court granted the mother's petition for certiorari and quashed the fee denial, holding that Section 65.16, F.S.A. authorizes discretionary awards of suit money and reasonable attorney's fees to the former wife in proceedings to enforce or modify decrees for alimony or child support. The decision directed the chancellor to determine and award a reasonable fee based on the existing record.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a fire insurance policy issued by Guarantee Mutual Fire Insurance Company to Benjamin Jacobs and Philip Fried covering merchandise in a Lakeland store. After the stock was destroyed by fire in July 1950, the insured filed suit following the company's failure to pay the claimed loss of over $6,000. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that Jacobs and Fried held an insurable interest in the merchandise through their ownership and control of the relevant corporations, despite the store operating under a corporate name. It further held that the insurer waived the policy's proof-of-loss requirement by unconditionally denying liability after receiving notice of the claim.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the City of Coral Gables seeking to enforce its 1937 Zoning Ordinance No. 271 against Perkins, who owned lots zoned for single-family residences but used them for storage in his plumbing business since before the ordinance and the city's incorporation. Perkins argued that his use qualified as a protected non-conforming use under Section 10 of the ordinance. The trial court ruled that the non-conforming use protections did not extend to the vacant lots 3 and 4. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even under a broader interpretation, the use violated Section 10(e) because it created a nuisance through noise and confusion disturbing neighboring residents.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Marion Lee Broadnax, who was convicted in a Florida criminal court for unlawfully possessing lottery tickets known as bolita. The trial court sentenced him to four months in confinement based on evidence that officers found the tickets in a cigar box at a business where Broadnax was temporarily working. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the state's evidence was legally insufficient to prove possession or knowledge of the tickets, as Broadnax had stated he was only filling in for the owner and there was no direct link to the tickets. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the requirement that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved a landowner challenging a municipal zoning ordinance that restricted an unplotted tract in Surfside to R-2 residential use for one- or two-family dwellings, rendering the property nearly valueless while business uses like a gas station would yield around $20,000 in market value. The owner sued to invalidate the restriction under Ordinance No. 41, citing surrounding commercial and apartment developments and the town's failure to acquire the land for its suggested park use. The trial court ruled the zoning arbitrary and unreasonable as applied to the property and ordered issuance of a permit for a gasoline station. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the chancellor's conclusions and noting that the town had waived any procedural defense regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved James Caston, who pleaded guilty in 1950 to carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under eighteen years of age under Florida Statute 794.05 and was placed on five years' probation by the Criminal Court of Record of Broward County instead of receiving a sentence. In 1951, Caston was convicted in municipal court for possessing and selling lottery tickets in violation of a city ordinance, which the state alleged breached a key probation condition requiring him to live at liberty without violating any law. After a hearing, the trial court revoked probation and the defendant appealed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the revocation, holding that the probation statutes (Chapters 947 and 948, F.S.A.) authorize revocation upon a finding of material violation after notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that a municipal conviction for lottery offenses constituted a sufficient basis for revocation under the probation order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the probate of Arthur C. Davis's will following his 1948 divorce from Freda H. Davis in Florida. The will, executed in 1942, left his entire estate to Freda and named her as executrix, but the divorce decree had approved a separation agreement between the spouses. After Arthur's death in 1950, the County Judge admitted the will to probate over arguments that the separation agreement impliedly revoked its provisions for Freda. The Circuit Court affirmed that order, and the Florida Supreme Court likewise affirmed, holding that the will remained valid.

family lawproperty

The case concerned a dispute between a building contractor and homeowners over payment for repairs and remodeling performed on their dwelling under an oral agreement. The contractor claimed the work was done on a cost-plus-10% basis for a total of $6,790.82, while the homeowners maintained that the agreement was for a fixed amount not to exceed $4,800, with disputes arising over extras, termite damage, and changes requested during construction. The contractor sought an accounting, a lien on the property for the unpaid balance of about $1,990, and a sale of the property to satisfy it. After a Special Master recommended judgment for the contractor, the trial court sustained exceptions and entered judgment for the homeowners, which the Supreme Court affirmed on the grounds that the evidence supported the fixed-price understanding and that the law's implication of payment for extras did not override the parties' agreement as found by the chancellor.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a lumber partnership that extended credit to the Emancipator Boat Company, Inc., after reviewing a favorable financial statement submitted by its president and majority owner, S. Mortimer Auerbach, to Dun & Bradstreet in 1948. The boat company was later adjudicated bankrupt in 1949, and the lumber company sued Auerbach for fraud and deceit, alleging that the statement misrepresented the company's financial condition and induced the extension of additional credit that resulted in losses. The trial court ruled for Auerbach, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial. The court reasoned that a commercial report made with intent to influence credit extensions is treated as fraudulent toward any party that relies on it, and the evidence showed Auerbach's control over the corporation, his submission of the report, and the plaintiffs' reliance on it in changing their credit practices.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Rosche v. City of Hollywood, abutting property owners on Tyler and Harrison Streets sued the city to invalidate special assessments for repaving the streets with asphalt and to obtain refunds of amounts already paid, arguing that the improvements provided no benefit to their properties and instead caused detriment through impaired drainage and increased traffic. The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that the properties did receive benefits, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court applied a presumption that street improvements benefit abutting lands and held that the evidence did not overcome it, noting also that the plaintiffs had admitted some benefit in their pleadings and were estopped from challenging the assessments because they failed to object during the paving process despite having notice. The decision relied on established precedent concerning the validity of municipal special assessments for local improvements.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the City of Miami Beach had authority under a 1945 special act to operate its municipally owned auditorium by booking theatrical productions, concerts, and similar events for winter visitors, in competition with private entertainment businesses like Starlight Corporation. Starlight sued to enjoin the city's activities, contending that the charter power to construct the auditorium did not extend to running an entertainment business. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the statutory authority to build and own the facility carried an implied power to operate it in the public interest. The court also noted that the plaintiffs, as taxpayers, had not presented testimony to support their claims after the issues were joined.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute in which plaintiff Jesse James Morris sued defendant Willie Golden in Escambia County court to recover approximately $1,500 that Morris had paid Golden in connection with an option to purchase land, relying on common counts for money had and received, loaned, paid at request, and due on account stated. A jury returned a verdict for Morris in the amount of $1,250, which the trial court upheld by denying Golden's motions for directed verdict. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that the verdict was contrary to the weight and preponderance of the evidence when considered as a whole. The court emphasized that a signed receipt given by Morris acknowledged receipt of a $250 final balance as full refund on the land purchase and transferred all his claims to a third party, undermining the sufficiency of the supporting testimony from Morris's family members.

propertyprocedure

In Perrin v. Enos, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment for $1,651.53 in a common-law action alleging the defendant owed money for loans, goods, and services. The defendant moved to vacate the judgment, citing mental and physical incapacity due to a recent car accident at the time of service, and she filed a sworn answer denying the debts except for minor amounts. The trial court granted the motion to set aside the default and final judgment. The Florida Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for certiorari, holding that the trial court had discretion to vacate the judgment during the court term based on the showing of good cause, including the defendant's condition and defenses, and that the motion was timely under applicable statutes.

procedure

The case involved a negligence suit by a caddy, Leonard Rollings, Jr., against golfer Burton Miller after the caddy was struck and permanently injured by a golf ball driven from the 15th tee at the Palm Beach Country Club on February 10, 1948. The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to warn him despite knowing or reasonably foreseeing the ball's path toward him; the jury returned a $10,000 verdict for the plaintiff. The trial court had refused to instruct the jury on the defendant's plea of contributory negligence or to allow the defense of assumption of risk, despite evidence of conflicts over whether the plaintiff kept a proper lookout, knew the defendant's playing habits, and received any warning. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court had a duty to instruct the jury on contributory negligence because it was properly raised as an issue and the evidence presented factual disputes requiring resolution under correct legal standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Great Southern Trucking Company to an order by the Florida Railroad Commission granting M.R. & R. Trucking Company an extension of its certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate freight service along U.S. Highway 90 between Greenville and Marianna and between Tallahassee and Quincy. Great Southern, which already held a certificate for the territory and operated regular schedules there, protested that its existing service was adequate and that the Commission should not grant a competing certificate. After hearings, the Commission found that Great Southern's service had been inadequate to meet public needs and issued the extension to M.R. & R. On petition for certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the record contained substantial competent evidence supporting the Commission's factual determination of inadequate service and that the court would not substitute its own judgment for the agency's findings on such matters.

business & regulatory