MICHAEL J. OSMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BROWARD BANK, 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 held that the appellant's contentions regarding an agreement with the Bank were previously disposed of and that summary judgment on the real estate commission was properly entered.
Michael Osman appealed a summary final judgment granted in favor of Broward Bank. Osman's arguments concerned a purported agreement with the Bank and …
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 Judicial Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Osman, third party plaintiff below, appeals a summary final judgment in favor of Broward Bank, third party defendant below, based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. After carefully considering Osman’s arguments, we conclude that his contentions with respect to a purported agreement with the Bank were disposed of in Photomagic Industries, Inc. v. Broward Bank, 526 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988).*
With respect to the real estate commission, we conclude that on the record here presented, summary judgment was properly entered. See Keyes Company v. Frazier, 213 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
*
Osman takes issue with a portion of this court’s earlier opinion in the prior appeal. His position in that respect is barred by the law of the case doctrine. However, if that issue were properly before us, it is clear (after taking judicial notice of the record of the prior appeal) that his position is without merit. After indicating that they were prepared to present evidence at a motion calendar hearing, appellants were directed to obtain a special appointment. At the special appointment the appellants argued the several issues discussed in the prior opinion, Photomagic, 526 So. 2d at 136, but presented no evidence with respect to the purported agreement with the Bank. The Bank asserted that there was no such agreement. The trial court in the present case correctly concluded that the issue regarding the settlement agreement was disposed of in the prior litigation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osman v. Broward Bank, 578 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Rule 9.315(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the judgment is affirmed on authority of Osman v. Broward Bank, 578 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and Photomagic Industries, Inc. v. Broward Bank, 526 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988).…
Authorities Cited
- Photomagic Indus., Inc. v. Broward Bank, 526 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- The Keyes Co. v. Frazier, 213 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)