Valdespino v. Pedraza

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdespino v. Pedraza

510 So. 2d 978, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9184

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1987

DocketNo. 87-49

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 So. 2d 978 (Valdespino v. Pedraza) 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

Valdespino v. Pedraza, 510 So. 2d 978, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9184 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding that when Jose Pedraza joined as defendants certain of the appellants in his 1980 dissolution action against Isabel Pedraza, his wife, he did so expressly to perfect his equitable distribution and special equity claims against his wife, we conclude that the dissolution action was properly dismissed not only as to Isabel upon her death, see Jaris v. Tucker, 414 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), but also, because the action against the joined appellants was so interrelated with the dissolution proceeding, as to the joined appellants. Thus, the dismissal of that action did not preclude Jose Pedraza from bringing an independent action against the appellants, and his institution of such an independent action did not properly subject him to a counterclaim for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the counterclaim is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding that when Jose Pedraza joined as defendants certain of the appellants in his 1980 dissolution action against Isabel Pedraza, his wife, he did so expressly to perfect his equitable distribution and special equity claims against his wife, we conclude that the dissolution action was properly dismissed not only as to Isabel upon her death, see Jaris v. Tucker, 414 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), but also, because the action against the joined appellants was so interrelated with the dissolution proceeding, as to the joined appellants. Thus, the dismissal of that action did not preclude Jose Pedraza from bringing an independent action against the appellants, and his institution of such an independent action did not properly subject him to a counterclaim for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the counterclaim is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 978, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1639, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdespino-v-pedraza-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack