McAnally v. Craig

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McAnally v. Craig

595 So. 2d 205, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1694, 1992 WL 32795

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2063

StatusPublished

This text of 595 So. 2d 205 (McAnally v. Craig) 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

McAnally v. Craig, 595 So. 2d 205, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1694, 1992 WL 32795 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

FASTRACK APPEAL

HERSEY, Judge.

In this action to determine entitlement to certain property in an estate, the trial court entered an order dismissing with prejudice one count of a four count complaint. The property at issue in the dismissed count is the subject of a suit which had been filed earlier in North Carolina, the domicile of the decedent. While we concur in the trial court’s conclusion that the matter should be resolved in the North Carolina action where jurisdiction was first acquired, we find error in treating the dismissal as one with prejudice. While unlikely, it is possible that the North Carolina court might fail or refuse to determine entitlement to the assets in question. Thus, we find it appropriate to strike from the final judgment the “with prejudice” aspect, so that the matter may be revisited again by a Florida court should entitlement not be satisfactorily resolved elsewhere. Cf Dhondy v. Schimpeler, 528 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988).

With the exception noted, we affirm the judgment appealed.

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FASTRACK APPEAL

HERSEY, Judge.

In this action to determine entitlement to certain property in an estate, the trial court entered an order dismissing with prejudice one count of a four count complaint. The property at issue in the dismissed count is the subject of a suit which had been filed earlier in North Carolina, the domicile of the decedent. While we concur in the trial court’s conclusion that the matter should be resolved in the North Carolina action where jurisdiction was first acquired, we find error in treating the dismissal as one with prejudice. While unlikely, it is possible that the North Carolina court might fail or refuse to determine entitlement to the assets in question. Thus, we find it appropriate to strike from the final judgment the “with prejudice” aspect, so that the matter may be revisited again by a Florida court should entitlement not be satisfactorily resolved elsewhere. Cf Dhondy v. Schimpeler, 528 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988).

With the exception noted, we affirm the judgment appealed.

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 205, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1694, 1992 WL 32795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcanally-v-craig-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack