DE ANZA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
TENANTS CIVIL ASSOCIATION OF PARK LAKE ESTATES, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
De Anza Corporation, a mobile home park owner, challenged a trial court order allowing tenants to deposit rental payments into the court registry instead of paying the owner directly. The appellate court quashed the order, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis for the deposit requirement, especially where the owner had voluntarily offered to post a bond.
The trial court's order directing deposit of funds into the registry was quashed because the respondent failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis for the relief, including proof of the merits of its claim, likelihood of success, or necessity for such deposit in light of the owner's offer to post a bond.
[1] A court may order the deposit of funds into its registry only upon a demonstrated legal or factual basis.
[2] A motion seeking the deposit of funds into the registry of the court must be supported by evidence.
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 intelligence“Although the trial court does have authority under Rule 1.600 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to direct the deposit of funds into the registry of the court, we do not believe the respondent has demonstrated any legal or factual basis upon which the trial court could act.”
Establishes that while courts have the power to order deposit of funds, such relief requires a demonstrated legal or factual foundation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDe Anza Corporation owned a mobile home park. The tenants' civil association filed a motion to permit tenants to deposit portions of their rental paym…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, the owner of a mobile home park, seeks relief from a court order entered upon motion by the respondent, permitting the park’s tenants to deposit certain portions of their rental payments into the registry of the court instead of making payment directly to the petitioner. The only grounds offered in support of the motion were that respondent was in doubt as to what amount to pay to the petitioner. The motion was unsworn and no evidence on the issue was presented at the hearing on the motion. In addition the petitioner voluntarily offered to post a bond to secure any damages claimed by the tenants. Although the trial court does have authority under Rule 1.600 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to direct the deposit of funds into the registry of the court, we do not believe the respondent has demonstrated any legal or factual basis upon which the trial court could act. For instance, the respondent offered no proof on the merits of its claim or the likelihood of success on said claim, or on the need for such deposit in the face of petitioner’s agreement to post a bond. Cf. Dunes Development Corp. of Palm Beach v. Dunes Towers Association, Inc., 380 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Wincast Associates, Inc. v. Hickey, 320 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1979); Brooks v. Galicia Steamship Co. Ltd., 237 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Accordingly, the petition is granted and the trial court’s order of February 18, 1981, is hereby quashed. This order is entered without prejudice to the trial court to direct that the petitioner post a bond in accordance with its representations made before the trial court and this court.
LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD and BER-ANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pomponio v. The Claridge OF Pompano Condo., Inc., 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Brewington, 320 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Dunes Dev. Corp. OF Palm Beach v. Dunes Towers Ass'n, Inc., 380 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Brooks v. Galicia S.S. Co., Ltd., 237 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)