WINTER PARK GOLF ESTATES, INC., SOUTHMORE LAND CO., UNION STATE BANK AND W. H. TUNNICLIFFE, AS LIQUIDATOR OF BANK OF WINTER PARK,
v.
CITY OF WINTER PARK
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a newly decided precedent regarding excessive special improvement liens.
Yes, the excess amount of a validly entered special improvement lien can be judicially annulled in appropriate proceedings, based on the precedent set in a related case.
“if special improvement liens have been validly entered, but are for excessive amounts, the excess may be judicially annulled in appropriate proceedings, on proper allegations and proofs invoking the application of the rule stated in that decision.”
Establishes the legal principle for handling excessive special improvement liens.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved special improvement liens entered by the City of Winter Park. The appellants challenged these liens, and the case was appealed to t…
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.
— Since this case was argued and submitted this Court has decided the cases of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Winter Haven, 112 Fla. 807, 151 Sou. Rep. 321, wherein it was held that if special improvement liens have been validly entered, but are for excessive amounts, the excess may be judicially annulled in appropriate proceedings, on proper allegations and proofs invoking the application of the rule stated in that decision.
In order that the present case may be reconsidered in the court below in the light of the rule of law stated in the above mentioned cases decided here subsequent to the entry of the present appeal in this case, it is ordered that the decree appealed from be reversed without prejudice, and that this cause be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings therein, with leave to each of the parties to make such amendments' to the pleadings and to offer such additional evidence as the chancellor may allow in order to haye the controversy properly re-presented to the court for reconsideration in the light of applicable provisions of law. The costs of the present appeal are initially taxed against the appellants, without prejudice to appellants’ right to move that the same be hereafter allowed and taxed in whole or in part against the appellee, should appellants ultimately prevail in the present litigation.
Decree reversed without prejudice and cause remanded for further proceedings in circuit court.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially). — I concuT in the conclusions reached by the majority opinion but in addition to what is said there as reasons for reversal, I think the final decree should be reversed on authority of the opinion and *352judgment in the case of State, et alv. Hillsborough County,. filed in this Court on December 23, 1933, and reported in 151 Sou. 712, and authorities there cited.
Buford, J.
(concurring specially). — I concuT in the conclusions reached by the majority opinion but in addition to what is said there as reasons for reversal, I think the final decree should be reversed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of State, et alv. Hillsborough County,. filed in this Court on December 23, 1933, and reported in 151 Sou. 712, and authorities there cited.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)…J., concur. DREW, J., dissents with Opinion. ERVIN, J., dissents and concurs with DREW, J. . F.S. § 768.06, F.S.A . Loftin v. Crowley’s, Inc., 150 Fla. 836, 8 So. 2d 909, 142 A.L.R. 626 (1942). . Winter Park Golf Estates v. City of Winter Park, 114 Fla. 350, 153 So. 842 (1934). .General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co., 183 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App.1966).…1 / 2
-
E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…merely because the law has changed between trial and appeal. See Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467; Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d at 262; Winter Park Golf Estates, Inc. v. City of Winter Park, 114 Fla. 350, 153 So. 842 (1934); Melick v. Melick, 393 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Gellert had a right to rely on the law which was in force when the case was tried, and in 1980 there was no need for him to prove independent fault on Eastern’s part. He will have an opp…
-
Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…mpany v. Rouse, Fla.1966, 194 So. 2d 260; General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co., Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 1; Yates v. St. Johns Beach Development Co., 122 Fla. 141, 165 So. 384; Winter Park Golf Estates v. City of Winter Park, 114 Fla. 350, 153 So. 842; State ex rel. Ben Hur Life Ass’n v. Dunaway, 113 Fla. 252, 151 So. 391. In Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, supra, Fla.1966, 194 So. 2d 260, 262, the Supreme Court stated, as being a correct pronouncement of the controlling rule of law…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State & George F. Corrigan v. Cnty. of Hillsborough, 113 Fla. 345 (Fla. 1933)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. City of Winter Haven. (3 Cases.), 112 Fla. 807 (Fla. 1933)