Munro v. Bechard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Munro v. Bechard

132 So. 2d 429, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2507

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1961

DocketNo. 60-203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 So. 2d 429 (Munro v. Bechard) 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

Munro v. Bechard, 132 So. 2d 429, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2507 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final decree setting aside, for intrinsic fraud on the court, a quiet title decree which had been entered two years earlier. The decree also ruled that service by publication on a named part owner on the basis of residence unknown “if living” or if dead his heirs, etc., was defective. The chancellor erred in rejecting the service by publication, which, otherwise regular, was held to be bad on a showing that a skilled subsequent investigation extending over a period of months revealed that the party in question was dead and resulted in locating his heirs in California. The predicate for service by publication against the particular named defendant, as having an unknown place of residence, and if dead on his unknown heirs, was not shown to be insufficient under the established rule, as set out in McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, 831-832, 51 A.L.R. 731; Balian v. Wekiwa Ranch, 97 Fla. 180, 122 So. 559, 563-564; Grammer v. Grammer, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 457. But the decree appealed from is affirmed on the ground that there was sufficient evidence before the chancellor to support his decision in setting aside the prior decree for fraud. See Cook v. Rochford, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 531, 32 A.L.R. 2d 1210.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final decree setting aside, for intrinsic fraud on the court, a quiet title decree which had been entered two years earlier. The decree also ruled that service by publication on a named part owner on the basis of residence unknown “if living” or if dead his heirs, etc., was defective. The chancellor erred in rejecting the service by publication, which, otherwise regular, was held to be bad on a showing that a skilled subsequent investigation extending over a period of months revealed that the party in question was dead and resulted in locating his heirs in California. The predicate for service by publication against the particular named defendant, as having an unknown place of residence, and if dead on his unknown heirs, was not shown to be insufficient under the established rule, as set out in McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, 831-832, 51 A.L.R. 731; Balian v. Wekiwa Ranch, 97 Fla. 180, 122 So. 559, 563-564; Grammer v. Grammer, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 457. But the decree appealed from is affirmed on the ground that there was sufficient evidence before the chancellor to support his decision in setting aside the prior decree for fraud. See Cook v. Rochford, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 531, 32 A.L.R. 2d 1210.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 2d 429, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munro-v-bechard-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack