Rose v. Rose
898 So. 2d 1216, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5447, 2005 WL 901189
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rose v. Rose. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13895 →
Opinion
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
Rose v. Rose, 898 So. 2d 1216, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5447, 2005 WL 901189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).
898 So. 2d 1216 (Rose v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Knott v. Knott
395 So. 2d 1196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Young v. Young
322 So. 2d 594 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Miller v. Scobie
11 So. 2d 892 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)