AUGUST URBANEK AND SIDNEY KOHL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PARTNERS IN THE FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP KNOWN AS THE 18TH HOLE DEVELOPERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 18TH HOLE AT INVERRARY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the appellees in a malicious prosecution action, relying on prior precedent.
Appellants were awarded costs in a prior successful defense of an action. They then sued for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted summary ju…
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 Taxing Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting the appellees’ motion for final summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action. The appellants had previously been awarded a cost judgment in the successful defense of the underlying action. The trial court correctly relied on Cypher v. Segal, 501 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and granted summary judgment for the appel-lees. We affirm.
This court recently addressed the precise issue presented in this case in Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 573 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. pending, (Fla. Mar. 1, 1991) (No. 77,570). The final judgment was affirmed in Jaye because of Cypher and River Bend Marine, Inc. v. Sailing Assocs., Inc., 539 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The foundation of both Cypher and River Bend was Cate v. Oldham, 450 So. 2d 224 (Fla.1984), which suggested in dicta that English common law would control in a situation such as this and the successful defendant would be required to chose between taxing costs in the original action or pursuing a malicious prosecution claim, but could not do both. In Jaye, the court noted that the first district in Turkey Creek, Inc. v. Londono, 567 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. granted, 511 So. 2d 1327 (Fla.1991), disagreed with this court’s interpretation of Cate.
Here, as in Jaye, we deem the issue to be of great public importance and we certify this question to the supreme court:
WHETHER CATE v. OLDHAM APPLIES TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO BAR A SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY ELECTED TO TAX COSTS AND/OR FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE UNDERLYING ACTION?
AFFIRMED AND QUESTION CERTIFIED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and STEVENSON, W. MATTHEW, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
August Urbanek v. The 18TH Hole Inverrary Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 619 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1993)…ve for review Urbanek v. 18th Hole at Inverrary Condominium Ass’n, 599 So. 2d 1056, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed based on its earlier decision in Urbanek v. 18th Hole at Inverrary Condominium Ass’n, 582 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 587 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1991), and certified the same question that it had certified in the prior case. In the first Urbanek case, the district court certified the following question: WHETHER CATE v. OLDHAM [450 So.…
-
August Urbanek and Sidney Kohl v. The 18TH Hole Inverrary Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. We affirm. Urbanek v. The 18th Hole at Inverrary Condominium Ass’n, 582 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We certify the same question certified in the prior case as being one of great public importance. LETTS, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cate v. Oldham, 450 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1984)
- Turkey Creek, Inc. v. Javier H. Londono, M.D., 567 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Cypher v. Segal, 501 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 573 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- River Bend Marine, Inc. v. Sailing Assocs., Inc., 539 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Yoram LOW v. Powerline Serv., Inc., 539 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)