TERRY ZIEGLER, JAMES GREENBAUM, JEFFREY WALLERSTEIN, AND PRIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK, STRELKOW & GAY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of interpleader defendants and temporary injunction, holding that defendants must be afforded opportunity to answer and raise defenses before determining propriety of interpleader.
Defendants in an interpleader action must be given opportunity to answer the complaint and raise defenses before the trial court determines the propriety of interpleader and dismisses the interpleading plaintiff.
[1] In an interpleader action, defendants must be afforded an opportunity to answer the complaint and raise defenses before the trial court determines the propriety of interp…
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 intelligenceZiegler, Greenbaum, Wallerstein, and Prime Financial Services filed an interpleader action against Frank, Strelkow & Gay. The trial court denied defen…
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 Pleading Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order under review, which, inter alia, found the cause to be a proper interpleader, dismissed the plaintiff-appellee from the action, and temporarily enjoined the defendants-appellants from filing any further actions respecting the interpleaded funds.
We hold that (1) the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for inter-pleader which simply challenges the sufficiency of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint does not end the inquiry as to the propriety of interpleader where the defendants, as here, seek to allege facts not revealed by the complaint, at least some of which, if proved, constitute valid defenses to an interpleader complaint, see Lowry v. Downing Manufacturing Co., 73 Fla. 535, 74 So. 525 (1917); and (2) the propriety of a complaint for interpleader and the dismissal of the interpleading plaintiff is not to be determined, as it was below, without first affording the defendants an opportunity to answer the complaint and raise and be heard on such defenses to it as they might have, Hernandez v. Travelers Insurance Co., 356 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1955); Hartzog v. Dixon, 366 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).-
Reversed and remanded with directions to dissolve the temporary injunction pending further proceedings to be held in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Concordia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kimler & Entin, P.A., 505 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…sing the appellee upon the funds being deposited. The court erred in accepting the interpleader and releasing the appellee over objection without first permitting appellant to answer and assert affirmative defenses. Ziegler v. Frank, Streklow & Gay, 421 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). There was no error in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss. DeGarcia v. Seiglie, 230 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We therefore affirm in part, revers…
Authorities Cited
- Drummond Title Co. v. Isreal S. Weinroth, 77 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1955)
- Willie M. Lowry and her husband v. Downing Mfg. Co., 73 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1917)
- Delida Hernandez and Matias Hernandez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 356 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hartzog v. Dixon, 366 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)