Hope v. Lipkin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hope v. Lipkin

156 So. 2d 659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1963

DocketNo. 63-544

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 156 So. 2d 659 (Hope v. Lipkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hope v. Lipkin, 156 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 2d 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-v-lipkin-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack