Hope v. Lipkin
156 So. 2d 659
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 15, 1963·No. No. 63-544·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
The right to attorneys’ fees is derivative in nature when representing the wife in a divorce action. See: Smith v. Smith, 90 Fla. 824, 107 So. 257. Counsel for the wife have attempted to take an appeal in their individual names and not on behalf of the wife. Never having been parties of record in the trial court, they have no standing to prosecute such an appeal. See: Salomon v. Taylor, 50 Fla. 608, 39 So. 48; King v. Brown, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 187; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 55. Therefore, same is hereby dismissed,
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hope v. Lipkin, 156 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).
156 So. 2d 659 (Hope v. Lipkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A.
125 So. 3d 1034 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Brown v. Brown (In Re Brown)
177 B.R. 116 (M.D. Florida, 1994)
Fickle v. Adkins
385 So. 2d 1141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Valparaiso Bank & Trust Co. v. Sims
343 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Wolf v. Horton
322 So. 2d 71 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Varvel v. Varvel
35 Fla. Supp. 87 (Lake County Circuit Court, 1971)
Novack v. Novack
203 So. 2d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)