THERMOFIN, INC., AND THERMOFIN MACHINE, DIVISION OF SCHAEFER INDUSTRIES, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD WOODRUFF AND AMI SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, INC., D/B/A AUTO MACHINE INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule Against Splitting Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
[*345] STONE, Judge.
We affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Appellant has previously filed another action in the same court, involving the same parties, and arising out of the identical facts and circumstances, but involving a different remedy.
We recognize that the concepts of collateral estoppel and res judicata, raised in appellants’ brief, require that there be a “termination” of the other action. Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1956); Lorf v. Indiana Insurance Co., 426 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Thoman v. Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). However, appellant, by filing this second case, has attempted to split its cause of action between the two lawsuits. The rule against splitting causes of action requires that all relief arising out of a single transaction or event be sought, and recovered, in one action. Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So. 2d 432 (1942); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Squires Development Corp., 387 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Therefore, any relief to be obtained by appellant must be sought in the original proceeding.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…decisions in Huff Groves Trust v. Caulkins Indian-town Citrus Co., 810 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 535 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), all of which are in conflict with our holding in this ease. REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER, WARNER, KLEIN, STEVENSON, SHAHOOD, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…1 / 2
-
Swain v. Calvin H. Curry, M.D., 595 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…gligence, there exists but a single cause of action giving rise to different elements of damage. The rule against splitting causes of actions thus requires that the Swains seek and recover all relief in one action. E.g., Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The Swains acknowledge that they are subject to the proximate causation requirements of Good-ing v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1984). They urge, however, that the Eagle-Picher holding should be stri…
-
Froman v. Kirland, 753 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…on is voluntarily dismissed prior to a ruling on a motion to dismiss the second action. In our opinion, we explained why the answer to that question is no. Second, the appellee contends that our decision conflicts with Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We conclude that it does not, because it appears to us that in Thermofin the first action was still pending at the time the second action was involuntarily dismissed. The court noted that “any relief to be obtained by appellant…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Cont'l, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1956)
- Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1942)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Squires Dev. Corp., 387 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Coco v. State, 426 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In the name of the State of Fla. upon the relation of Jack E. Hammock v. Kennedy, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Thoman v. Timmothy Ashley, 170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)