SEYMOUR BERKOWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD FIRESTONE, 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.
This case concerns whether a plaintiff's complaint for a declaratory decree sufficiently demonstrated a genuine doubt about their rights under a written instrument, warranting judicial clarification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's stated doubt was bona fide.
No, the trial court did not err in finding that the complaint presented a bona fide need for a declaration. The exhibits attached to the complaint did not conclusively refute the existence of a genuine doubt regarding the plaintiff's rights.
“The basic contention is that the merits of the cause are so clearly for the defendant that the chancellor erred in finding that the complaint presents a bona fide need for the declaration.”
This quote summarizes the appellant's main argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as the defendant in the trial court, filed a motion to dismiss a complaint for a declaratory decree. The appellant contended that the p…
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 Bona Fide Need For Declaration cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the defendant in the trial court to a suit for a declaratory decree. His motion to dismiss the complaint was denied whereupon this interlocutory appeal was taken. The basic contention is that the merits of the cause are so clearly for the defendant that the chancellor erred in finding that the complaint presents a bona fide need for the declaration. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338. It is urged that the existence of appellant’s rights are so clear as to make the prayer for a declaration a request by ap-pellee for advice from the court. We think not. The complaint shows that the plaintiff is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of his rights under a written instrument. We hold that the chancellor did not err in finding that the exhibits attached to the complaint do not conclusively refute the existence of a genuine doubt and that the plaintiff is entitled to have such doubt removed. See Bacon v. Crespi, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 823.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caidin v. Lakow, 546 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…a declaration of his rights under such contract where there exist extrinsic facts which would affect the clear and unambiguous language of the written agreement.” Bacon v. Crespi, 141 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); accord Berkowitz v. Firestone, 173 So. 2d 161 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). The fact that the release contained only one signature instead of two, as required by section 733.615, Florida Statutes (1987), and the undisputed testimony of the threats by the Estate’s counsel to take the precise action that t…
Authorities Cited
- Columbia Cas. Co. v. Zimmerman, 62 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1952)
- Sanford Bacon for Marvin M. Bacon v. Eli R. Crespi, 141 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)