ENRIQUE CASTRO ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUN BANK OF BAL HARBOUR, N. A., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging alleged nuisance and zoning violations related to a proposed development called Fair Isle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the issues were precluded by an earlier settlement judgment in State v. Sailboat Key. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the prior judgment bound all parties, including non-intervenors who were citizens of the state and city where the settling party defendant operated.
The prior final judgment in State v. Sailboat Key precluded relitigation of the issues sought by appellants because no new issues were presented. Non-intervenor appellants Castro and Shaw were bound by the prior judgment because they were citizens of Florida and Miami at the time of the Sailboat Key litigation, the City of Miami was a party defendant in that action and signed the settlement, and the City remained a defendant in the current action.
[1] A prior judgment on the merits, even if based on a settlement agreement, precludes relitigation of the same issues.
[2] Citizens of a municipality are bound by a prior judgment where the municipality was a party defendant and signed a settlement agreement incorporated into the judgment, ev…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record shows that no new issues were presented by this cause, rather the issues which appellants seek to raise are the same ones which were determined in State v. Sailboat Key”
Establishes the preclusion doctrine - that relitigation of identical issues is barred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Sun Bank and others regarding alleged nuisance and zoning violations connec…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appel-lees, defendants below, in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising from alleged nuisance and zoning violations in regard to the proposed development of Fair Isle.1 We affirm.
In the summary final judgment appealed, the trial court found that the case of State v. Sailboat Key, Case No. 73-6449 (11th Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, July 29, 1977), precluded the relitigation of the issues sought to be raised by appellants. Our review of the record compels us to agree with the trial court. The record shows that no new issues were presented by this cause, rather the issues which appellants seek to raise are the same ones which were determined in State v. Sailboat Key, cited above, which, even though involving a settlement agreement which was made a part of the final judgment, was decided on the merits. See, e. g., Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1957), and Warringer v. Fernandez, 310 So. 2d 375 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Further, the record shows that the trial court, at the time it entered the final judgment, had jurisdiction of the subject matter and all of appellants, except appellants Castros and Shaw who were not “interve-nors” in the action. However, in our opinion, these appellants were also bound by the final judgment. Appellants Castros and Shaw were citizens of the State of Florida and the City of Miami at the time of the litigation in State v. Sailboat Key, cited above. The City of Miami was a party defendant in that action and signed the settlement agreement incorporated in the final judgment. The City of Miami is also a party defendant in the instant action. Under these circumstances, the final judgment is binding on these appellants irrespective of whether they were formal parties to the original action. See, e. g., Young v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 46 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1950); State v. Gessner, 157 Fla. 798, 26 So. 2d 896 (1946), and City of New Port Richey v. State, 145 So. 2d 903 (Fla.2d DCA 1962).
For the reasons set forth above and because no other reversible error has been shown, the summary final judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The name “Fair Isle” has been changed by appellees to “Grove Isle.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard A. Engle, M.D. v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006)…nicipal corporation in a matter of general interest to all its citizens is binding on the latter, although they are not parties to the suit.” Id. at 30 (emphasis supplied) (quoting 38 Am.Jur. § 728). Similarly, in Castro v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, 370 So. 2d 392, 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the Third District held that private parties were precluded from relitigating public nuisance and zoning violation claims that had already been settled by the State. The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs were bound…
-
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…iami Beach Improvement Co., 46 So. 2d at 30. Thus, once a government agency resolves a matter of public rights or interests, the same matter cannot thereafter be relitigated by private parties. Similarly, in Castro v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N.A., 370 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), this Court held that private parties were barred from re-litigating certain public-nuisance and zoning claims already settled by the state. The settlement was binding on private parties regardless of whether they were formal part…
-
Sailboat KEY, Inc. v. Gardner, 378 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…the settlement agreement incorporated by reference in the final judgment entered in the case of State v. Sailboat Key, Case No. 73-6449 (Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, July 29, 1977). See: Castro v. Sun Bank of Bal Harbour, N. A., 370 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . “Injurious falsehood” is merely another name for the tort known as "slander of title”. See: Collier County Publishing Co. v. Chapman, supra, where the Second District adopted Pros-ser’s summary of the law of this tort. As note…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valentine W. Mims v. Reid, 98 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1957)
- Young v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 46 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1950)
- City OF NEW Port Richey v. State ex rel. O'Malley, 145 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- State v. Gessner, 157 Fla. 798 (Fla. 1946)
- Warriner v. Fernandez, 310 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Bolen v. Bolen, 157 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1946)