PEDRO ALOMAR AND PAULA ALOMAR, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAGNA PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MAGNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 denial of class certification because the named plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they would fairly and adequately represent the class under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a).
Named plaintiffs in an installment contract dispute failed to satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement for class certification.
[1] Adequacy of class representation is primarily a factual issue determined by the trial court based on evidence such as depositions of named plaintiffs.
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 intelligenceHusband and wife plaintiffs defaulted on an installment contract for a lot purchase where the seller retained title until full payment, and sought to …
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 Installment Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying class certification. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, defaulted under an installment contract for the purchase of a lot under which the seller retained title until the purchase price was fully paid. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to a refund of a portion of their payments which the seller is wrongfully retaining, and seek to proceed as representatives of a class of others they claim are similarly situated.
The trial court declined to certify a class because the claim did not meet several requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), one of which was that these plaintiffs would not “fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class.”
The trial court arrived at its conclusion based on facts reflected by the depositions of plaintiffs. We cannot say that the court erred in declining certification on that basis. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1994), and cases cited therein. See also Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F. 2d 718, 728 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 1221, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988) (observing that the adequacy of class representation is “primarily a factual issue”).
We therefore affirm, but solely on the ground of inadequacy of these plaintiffs to represent the class.
GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alomar v. Magna Props., Inc., 705 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…d an order of the trial court finding that Pedro and Paula Alo-mar would not adequately represent the interests of members of a class so as to allow them to proceed as representatives of the class in a class action. Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc., 682 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court then allowed their daughter, Nancy Alomar, who was also the purchaser of a lot from appellees under an installment contract, to intervene. After reviewing her deposition, the court made a finding of fact that she…
Authorities Cited
- Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718 (11th Cir. 1987)
- Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 485 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1988)
- Miera v. Garcia, 485 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1988)
- Williams v. Dade Cnty., 625 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)