WAYNE DENNIS, VIRGINIA GREEN, RICHARD A. DENNIS, CLAUDIA PRINO AND W. D. DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SERGE DALDOSSI, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
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 reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint alleging entitlement to interests in real property based on contributions toward acquisition and zoning services, holding that the complaint stated sufficient facts to establish a bona fide adverse interest requiring judicial resolution.
A complaint alleging contributions toward real property acquisition and zoning services states sufficient ultimate facts to establish a bona fide adverse interest and entitles plaintiffs to judicial determination of their claimed rights.
[1] A complaint alleging contributions toward real property acquisition or zoning services states sufficient ultimate facts to establish bona fide adverse interest and entitl…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs contributed money toward acquisition of real property or services in procuring necessary zoning for property held in title by defendant Dal…
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 Adverse Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order dismissing with prejudice the third amended complaint of Dennis, et al., the plaintiffs below, which alleges, in essence, that Daldossi, the defendant, is the title owner, as trustee, of certain real property and that by virtue of their having contributed money towards the acquisition of the property or services in connection with procuring necessary zoning, the plaintiffs believe they are entitled to a judgment declaring their legal interests in such property, and the property thereafter partitioned, as against Daldossi’s claim that the property is his to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. In our view, the third amended complaint sets forth sufficient ultimate facts showing a bona fide adverse interest between the parties concerning a right of the plaintiffs and doubt about the existence of this right, so as to entitle the plaintiffs to have the doubt removed by a judgment for them or for the person, here Daldossi, shown to have the adverse interest. See May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1952); Floyd v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 415 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
If the trial court’s barebones dismissal order was based on Daldossi’s affirmative assertion that the plaintiffs’ action was barred by a bankruptcy court’s prior judgment, then since neither the complaint nor exhibits attached thereto show on their face that the action is barred, dismiss al is improper. Pizzi v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 250 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1971); Ciliberti v. Ciliberti, 416 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pizzi v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., 250 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1971)
- Floyd v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am., 415 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ciliberti v. Conchita Ciliberti & Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 416 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)