CONCORD SHOPPING CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LITOWITZ, 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.
Concord Shopping Center appealed a directed verdict in its malicious prosecution and abuse of process suit against Robert Litowitz, who had previously filed a competing rezoning challenge. The court affirmed, holding that Litowitz's rezoning lawsuit had probable cause and therefore could not support a malicious prosecution claim.
The court held that Litowitz's prior lawsuit had probable cause, and therefore Concord's malicious prosecution claim failed as a matter of law. The filing of a rezoning challenge by one landowner against another's rezoning ordinance does not constitute abuse of process.
“want of probable cause, an essential element of malicious prosecution, was not shown”
Establishes that the absence of probable cause is a necessary element of malicious prosecution that Concord failed to prove.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConcord Shopping Center owned land rezoned for shopping center use. Litowitz owned adjoining agricultural land whose rezoning application was denied. …
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 Advice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse judgment. The plaintiff Concord Shopping Center, Inc., owns a tract of land which was rezoned from agricultural use to a classification permitting a shopping center. The defendant Robert Litowitz owns an adjoining (agricultural) tract which he attempted to have rezoned for a shopping center, but his application was denied by the County Commission. Litowitz filed suit against Dade County seeking-a decree holding the rezoning of the plaintiff’s property for shopping center use was invalid. A lis pendens was filed on the property of Concord Shopping Center, Inc., and initially the corporation was not 'made a party. During its pendency the lis pendens was cancelled and the corporation was joined. That suit by Litowitz was terminated adversely to him.
Concord Shopping Center, Inc. then brought this action against Litowitz for *563damages for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, claiming the suit by Lito-witz had delayed and hindered financing and construction of its shopping center. This case was presented to a jury and tried and determined as one for malicious prosecution, and a verdict for damages was rendered in favor of the plaintiff Concord Shopping Center, Inc. Thereafter the court granted a post-trial motion for directed verdict and entered judgment for the defendant. This appeal followed.
In our view that ruling of the trial judge was eminently correct because want of probable cause, an essential element of malicious prosecution, was not shown. See Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 1931, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880; Glass v. Parrish, Fla. 1951, 51 So.2d 717; Warriner v. Burdines, Inc., Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 108. Malice, if established as appellant contends, would not operate to create want of probable cause, where probable cause was present. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, supra. As the facts on which the defense of advice of counsel was constructed were not in controversy, the question of the presence or absence of probable cause was one of law for determination by the court. See Glass v. Parrish, supra.
Appellant’s contention that the verdict was justified as one for abuse of process is without merit. The cause of action tried was malicious prosecution. Moreover, a case of abuse of process was not proved. The filing of a suit by one land owner, whose application for certain rezoning thereof to his advantage was denied, seeking to invalidate as having been unlawfully enacted an ordinance so rezoning adjacent land of another, does not represent abuse of process. The decision of the trial court inferentially so holding, is not error.
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness of Miami Beach, Inc. v. Ambers, 464 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Concord Shopping Center, Inc. v. Litowitz, 183 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1966).…
-
Concord Shopping Ctr. v. Litowitz, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 183 So. 2d 562.…
-
Constantinos Stamatinos v. Ne. Airlines, Inc., 258 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ave held that there are genuine issues of material fact for trial. We adhere to that holding. It is true that upon undisputed facts the question of probable cause may be a question of law. See Concord Shopping Center Inc. v. Litowitz, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 562. In the instant case, the facts upon which the appellees claim the existence of probable cause for the institution of the criminal prosecution are disputed facts susceptible to conflicting interpretations. The question on this appeal as it relates t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1931)
- Glass v. Parrish, 51 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1951)
- Warriner v. Burdines, Inc., 93 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1957)