THE DEAN COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
U.S. HOME CORPORATION, INC., AND IMPERIAL COVE CONDOMINIUM XIII ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
Dean Company appealed a trial court order permitting U.S. Home Corporation to pursue an amended complaint asserting a claim for contribution against Dean. The appellate court enforced its prior mandate and held that U.S. Home's election of indemnification as its remedy at trial foreclosed its subsequent attempt to pursue contribution, a mutually exclusive remedy.
A party's election between two mutually exclusive remedies (indemnification and contribution) at trial, made with knowledge of all pertinent facts, binds the party to the chosen course and precludes pursuit of the alternative remedy. U.S. Home's election of indemnification foreclosed its effort to pursue contribution.
[1] A party who elects between inconsistent remedies, with knowledge of all pertinent facts, is bound by the chosen remedy.
[2] A prior appellate court mandate dictates the scope of further proceedings in the trial court.
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“When a party elects between two or more inconsistent courses and has knowledge of all the pertinent facts, he binds himself to the course he adopts.”
Establishes the legal principle that election of remedies is binding and forecloses pursuit of alternative inconsistent remedies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, U.S. Home Corporation elected to confine its cause of action to a claim for indemnification rather than contribution against Dean Compan…
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 Inconsistent Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The Dean Company seeks relief from the trial court’s order, entered following the issuance of our mandate, permitting U.S. Home Corporation to pursue an amended complaint asserting entitlement to contribution as a result of a judgment awarded a condominium association. This matter is before us in alternative forms, i.e., a motion to enforce our mandate, a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of certiorari. We enforce the mandate and deny the petition in all other respects. We direct the trial court to enter an order dismissing the amended complaint.
We noted in our opinion in The Dean Company v. U.S. Home Corporation, Inc., 485 So. 2d 438, 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), that during the trial and before judgment, U.S. Home Corporation elected to confine its cause of action to a claim for indemnification rather than for contribution. The trial court, however, determined at the close of the evidence, and in spite of U.S. Home’s election, to allow amendment of the complaint to conform to the evidence. That amendment had the effect of transforming the action from one for indemnification to one for contribution. The error we found on appeal emerged from that amendment, 485 So. 2d at 439, and precludes U.S. Home from resuming the litigation based upon a theory of contribution.
We anticipated, consistent with our mandate, that further proceedings would comply with the effect to be given our opinion within the boundaries of applicable and controlling principles of law. Thus, in requiring the trial court to enter judgment discharging Dean from liability to U.S. Home for indemnification, we by no means created an opportunity for U.S. Home to pursue an action for contribution. U.S. Home’s choice of an indemnification remedy and its renunciation of the alternative, contribution, foreclosed the present effort to force Dean to assist in satisfying the association’s judgment. At the time of trial, indemnification and contribution were coexistent, mutually exclusive remedies, and “[w]hen a party elects between two or more inconsistent courses and has knowledge of all the pertinent facts, he binds himself to the course he adopts.... ” Barbe v. Villeneuve, 505 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1987); see Encore, Inc. v. Olivetti Corporation of America, 326 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla.1976).
This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barbe v. Villeneuve, 505 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1987)
- The Dean Co. v. U.S. Home Corp., Inc., 485 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Encore, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. OF Am., 326 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1976)