SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
SPYROS KATOGAS ET AL., APPELLEES; SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., APPELLANT, V. EMERALD PLAZA WEST, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
SPYROS KATOGAS ET AL., APPELLEES; SEGOVIA INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., APPELLANT, V. EMERALD PLAZA WEST, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
364 So. 2d 838
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
These appeals by the plaintiff are from the dismissal of a complaint and the dismissal of a counterclaim and third party complaint in a separate suit. The plaintiff concedes that if the complaint, which is the subject of the first appeal, was properly dismissed, the dismissal of the counterclaim and the third party complaint in the subsequent suit was proper. The plaintiff claimed an interest in real property but was unable to produce a writing to support said claimed interest. The dismissal of the complaint was proper under Section 689.01, Florida Statutes (1977). See Anderson v. Tower Amusement Co., 120 Fla. 476, 163 So. 11 (1935).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich v. Arthur C. (Tony) Gulliver, 564 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…er reduced to writing and was barred by the statute of frauds. See Dorsey v. Behm, 356 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); De Lucca v. Flamingo Corp., 121 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); § 689.01, Fla.Stat. (1989); see also Segovia Inv., Inc. v. Katogas, 364 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Third, the trial court properly ordered the defendant Arthur C. Gulliver to repay the plaintiff the $20,000 advanced by the plaintiff to Gulliver, and, was not required, as urged, to impress an equitable lien on the subject pro…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Tower Amusement Co. & D. V. Marquis, 120 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1935)