CASINO INVESTMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., 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.
Casino Investment sought to enforce a mandate from a prior appellate decision that reversed the trial court's declaratory judgment against Casino regarding construction on its property within a shopping center. The appellate court granted the motion to enforce the mandate and directed the trial court to enter final declaratory judgment in Casino's favor, holding that the trial court lacked discretion to modify the judgment on remand.
The trial court lacked discretionary power to deny Casino's motion for final declaratory judgment on remand, as doing so modified the appellate decision and altered the law of the case. The trial court was directed to enter final declaratory judgment in favor of Casino.
[1] A trial court lacks discretionary power to deny a motion for final declaratory judgment on the merits when an appellate court has previously determined that the underlyin…
[2] An appellate court's determination that a declaration of easement does not expressly bar proposed construction establishes the law of the case, precluding a trial court f…
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“Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling that, as a matter of law. Casino's proposed construction was barred under the Easement. We find that the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Easement do not expressly bar Casino's proposed construction.”
Establishes the appellate court's prior holding that Casino's construction was permitted by the easement language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Springs Mile Associates owns a shopping center and filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Casino Investment, alleging that Casino's pro…
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 Enforcement Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
Casino Investment, Inc. (“Casino”) filed this Motion to Enforce Mandate based upon our decision in Casino Investment, Inc. v. Palm Springs Mile Associates Ltd., 123 So.3d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We grant the motion and direct the trial court to enter final declaratory judgment in favor of Casino.
The appellee, Palm Springs Mile Associates, Ltd. (“Palm Springs”), owns a shopping center. Palm Springs opposes *47Casino’s proposed construction on a parcel Casino owns within the shopping center. To that end, Palm Springs filed a single count complaint for declaratory relief alleging that Casino’s proposed construction violates relevant portions of a Declaration of Easement which covers the shopping center. On appeal, this Court reversed the trial court’s granting of declaratory judgment in favor of Palm Springs,1 and reversed the trial court’s permanent injunction on Casino’s proposed construction:
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling that, as a matter of law. Casino’s proposed construction was barred under the Easement. We find that the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Easement do not expressly bar Casino’s proposed construction. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s entry of partial final summary judgment in favor of Palm Springs, reverse the trial court’s permanent injunction, and remand for further proceedings.
Casino, 123 So.3d at 101. On remand, Casino moved for a final declaratory judgment in its favor. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, and instead granted Palm Springs leave to amend its complaint.2
In Casino, this Court found that the Declaration of Easement unambiguously permitted the proposed construction. Id. As a result, we held that the trial court erred in ruling that the proposed construction was barred by the Declaration of Easement and erred in entering declaratory judgment in favor of Palm Springs on that basis. Id. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court was without discretionary power to deny Casino’s motion for final declaratory judgment on the merits of Palm Springs’ single count complaint for declaratory relief. See Torres v. Jones, 652 So.2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[I]t was error for the trial court to modify the final judgment on remand, and to change the law of the case as determined by the highest court hearing the case.”); Hessen v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 569 So.2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (granting motion to enforce mandate where trial court’s class certification on remand altered this Court’s determination regarding the class representative in first appeal); see also Gardner v. Nioso, 108 So.3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
The motion to enforce the mandate is granted, and the trial court is directed to enter final declaratory judgment in favor of Casino and against Palm Springs.
Reversed and remanded for consistent proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.M. v. A.J.D. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- BAY RAG & Grading, Inc. v. C & H Clothing, Inc., 652 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Gardner v. Anthony Nioso, M.D., 108 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Penelope Hessen v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 569 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Casino Inv., Inc. v. Palm Springs Mile Assocs., Ltd., 123 So. 3d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)