Rose v. Rose

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rose v. Rose

898 So. 2d 1216, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5447, 2005 WL 901189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-405

StatusPublished

This text of 898 So. 2d 1216 (Rose v. Rose) 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

Rose v. Rose, 898 So. 2d 1216, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5447, 2005 WL 901189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So.2d 892, 894 (1943)(“We do not deny the right of litigants to settle controversies out of court but any such settlement without the knowledge or notice to counsel and the payment of their fees is fraud on them whether there was an intent to do so or not.”); Knott v. Knott, 395 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Young v. Young, 322 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Miller v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328, 11 So.2d 892, 894 (1943)(“We do not deny the right of litigants to settle controversies out of court but any such settlement without the knowledge or notice to counsel and the payment of their fees is fraud on them whether there was an intent to do so or not.”); Knott v. Knott, 395 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Young v. Young, 322 So.2d 594, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 1216, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5447, 2005 WL 901189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-rose-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack