BUCKLEY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT BUCHWALD, TRUSTEE, ETC., 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.
The court held that the prior cases did not determine the issues raised in this appeal, thus the doctrine of estoppel by judgment does not apply.
[1] Summary judgment must be reversed when the trial court's decision was based on legal precedent that was unavailable at the time of the ruling and has since been supersede…
[2] The doctrine of estoppel by judgment does not bar a cause of action unless the issues raised were actually tried and determined in prior litigation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued, and appellees contended the action was barred by prior litigation. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees, but the con…
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 Estoppel By Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
We have carefully examined the issues raised by this appeal and find them to be controlled by our recent decision in Burleigh House Condominium v. Buchwald, 368 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In light of that decision, which we note was unavailable to the trial court at the time it entered summary judgment for the appellees, the summary judgment must be reversed.
We have particularly considered the issue of whether the doctrine of estoppel by judgment applies here to bar the appellant’s cause of action. The appellees contend that this action is barred by the prior cases of Buckley Towers Condominium v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), appeal dismissed, 327 So. 2d 31, 330 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1976) and Buckley Towers Condominium v. Buchwald, 340 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.1977). We cannot agree that the issues raised below were tried and determined in those cases.
Buckley Towers Condominium v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628, supra, determined only that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement entered into between the parties. Nowhere in that opinion were the terms of the agreement (particularly those terms relating to the recreation lease attacked sub judice) either approved or disapproved. The underlying validity of the recreation lease was never raised in this appeal.
In Buckley Towers Condominium v. Buchwald, 340 So. 2d 1206, supra, we held that no error was committed in the enforcement of the settlement agreement between the parties by (a) denying the appellant’s motion for a continuance, and (b) sequestering funds due the appellee under the terms of the recreation lease. Further, we expressly refused to consider the issue of the legality of the recreation lease that was raised for the first time at oral argument. We therefore conclude that there are no material features distinguishing this appeal from that in Burleigh House Condominium v. Buchwald, supra, and that the principles applied in that case are controlling here.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nissim Hadjes, Inc. v. Hasner, 408 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ider or rule upon the merits of a motion, it has adjudicated nothing which would prevent subsequent litigation of the matters raised in the motion. See Rountree v. Rountree, 72 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1954). Cf. Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 374 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), dismissed, 386 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1980) (appellate court’s express refusal in earlier appeal to consider issue of legality of recreation lease does not bar, under doctrine of estoppel by judgment, subsequent action raising that issu…
-
Zimmerman v. State, 944 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…. c.). In some cases, collateral estoppel does not apply where the previous court declined to rule upon the merits of a particular issue. See Nissim Hadjes, Inc. v. Hasner, 408 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 374 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However, the instant case is distinguishable. In Nissim Hadjes, the Third District concluded that “where a court expressly declines to consider or rule upon the merits of a motion, it has adjudicated nothing which would prevent…
Authorities Cited
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 340 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Burleigh House Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 368 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)