JIMMY WARD AND DALE WARD, APPELLANT,
v.
MYRTLE WARD, 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.
Jimmy and Dale Ward appealed a trial court's dismissal of their wrongful eviction claim and rejection of a constructive/resulting trust request. The appellate court reversed the wrongful eviction dismissal, holding that the trial court improperly focused on current ejectment proceedings rather than the 2006 eviction that formed the basis of their complaint.
The trial court erred in dismissing the wrongful eviction claim. The mere fact of subsequent lawful ejectment does not constitute a complete defense to a claim that an earlier eviction was wrongful. The court should have examined the 2006 eviction rather than focusing on the current litigation.
[1] A claim for wrongful eviction is not barred by the subsequent lawful ejection of the claimant from the property.
[2] Ejectment, rather than eviction, is the proper remedy when a party alleges an equitable interest in the land.
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“The mere fact that Appellants have now been lawfully ejected from the property is not a complete defense to their claim that they were wrongfully evicted pursuant to the earlier action filed in the county court.”
Establishes that subsequent lawful ejectment does not defeat a wrongful eviction claim based on an earlier proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Jimmy and Dale Ward claimed an equitable interest in property and were evicted pursuant to a 2006 ejectment action filed by Appellees. The …
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 Wrongful Eviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Jimmy and Dale Ward, challenge an order of the trial court involuntarily dismissing their complaint, which alleged a cause of action for wrongful eviction and sought the imposition of a constructive and/or resulting trust. The trial court also granted Appellees’ counterclaim for ejectment. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Appellants’ cause of action for wrongful eviction, and we affirm all other issues raised on appeal.
Appellants’ claim of wrongful eviction was based on a suit for eviction filed by Appellees in 2006 in the county court. In their answer to the complaint, Appellants alleged that they had an equitable interest in the property. The county court granted the eviction and the circuit court affirmed the order of the county court. Pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari, this Court found that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by affirming the county court’s decision. Ward v. Estate of Ward, 1 So.3d 238, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). This Court held that ejectment, not eviction, was the proper remedy due to Appellants’ allegation of an equitable interest in the land and that ejectment claims had to be raised in the circuit court. Id. Thus, this Court quashed the order affirming the eviction and remanded the case to the circuit court. Id.
In this case, the trial court dismissed Appellants’ claim for wrongful eviction based on its determination that Appellants failed to prove in the instant litigation a *1139legal or equitable interest in the property. This was error. The mere fact that Appellants have now been lawfully ejected from the property is not a complete defense to their claim that they were wrongfully evicted pursuant to the earlier action filed in the county court. Walsh v. CAS, Inc., 633 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Farm Maid Inc. v. Giller, 474 So.2d 1278, 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, the trial court erred in dismissing the claim for wrongful eviction based on findings related to the current litigation. The court should have focused on the events surrounding the 2006 eviction. We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order involuntarily dismissing the claim for wrongful eviction. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal without further discussion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DAVIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eldridge A. McCRAY v. State, 633 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jimmy and Dale Ward v. Est. OF Myrtle N. Ward, 1 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Farm Maid, Inc. v. Giller, 474 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)