NORMANDY BEACH PROPERTIES CORPORATION AND LEWIS TWYMAN
v.
JOSEPH H. ADAMS
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.
In this appeal from dismissal motions, the Florida Supreme Court considers whether a second amended bill of complaint in an equity action alleges sufficient facts to support rescission of an optional real estate contract. The Court affirms the denial of dismissal motions, holding that the amended complaint contains new fraud allegations that warrant consideration on the merits.
The Court affirms the denial of the motions to dismiss, holding that the second amended bill of complaint contains allegations of fraud that are not conclusively shown to fail as a matter of law, and therefore the complaint states a cause of action warranting consideration on the merits.
“we were confronted with the question of whether or not the statutory reservations in favor of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement and reservations in favor of the United States for commerce and navigation were encumbrances that would authorize rescission of the optional contract. We answered this question in the negative, provided the vendee had notice of' their existence when he purchased.”
Establishes the holding from the prior appeal regarding statutory reservations and encumbrances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is the second appeal in a case involving Normandy Beach Properties Corporation and Lewis Twyman as sellers against Joseph H. Adams as purchaser r…
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
A complete statement of the essential facts in this case will be found in Normandy Beach Properties Corporation v. Adams, 107 Fla. 583, 145 So. 870. When the mandate in that case went down the complainant filed 'a second amended bill of complaint. Both appellants filed motions to dismiss and appellant, Lewis Twyman, filed a motion to transfer the cause to the law side of the docket. All said motions were denied and this appeal is from that decree.
In Normandy Beach Properties Corporation v. Adams, supra, we were confronted with the question of whether or *845not the statutory reservations in favor of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement and reservations in favor of the United States for commerce and navigation were encumbrances that would authorize rescission of the optional contract. We answered this question in the negative, provided the vendee had notice of' their existence when he purchased. This answer, of course, assumes that he used the means available to inform himself.
The only question with which we are confronted in this appeal is whether or not the second amended bill of complaint states facts, in view of the former opinion of this Court, that would warrant a court of equity in rescinding the optional contract and ordering a return of the purchase money to the vendee.
Appellants contend that the allegations in the second amended bill of complaint are fantastic and imaginary as distinguished from real or legal and constitute no basis for ordering a rescission of the optional contract and a return of the purchase money, whle appellee contends that it contains specific averments of fraud that if proven will entitle him to relief.
The second amended bill of complaint has been examined and found to contain allegations of fraud which were not contained in the original bill of complaint when the case was last before us. We are not at this time impressed with some of these allegations and do not now adjudicate the sufficiency of any of them. The proof may reveal that some of them have merit. At any rate, we hold that as against the ruling of the chancellor it is not conclusively shown that the bill fails to state a cause of action.
For these reasons we also decline at this time to hold our former decision res judicata as to the question of fraud alleged in the second amended bill of complaint, from which *846it follows that the judgment below must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…80-81. The Court concluded: The law-of-the-case doctrine was meant to apply to matters litigated to finality, not to matters that remain essentially unresolved due to the erroneous ruling of a lower court. Normandy Beach Properties Corp. v. Adams, 126 Fla. 844, 171 So. 796 (1937). Here, the default judgment was held to be erroneous on grounds the original complaint failed to state a cause of action. Wells Fargo, 496 So. 2d at 246. The effect was to return this proceeding to the lower court as though the e…
-
Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 575 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1991)…. We reject this conclusion. The law-of-the-case doctrine was meant to apply to matters litigated to finality, not to matters that remain essentially unresolved due to the erroneous ruling of a lower court. Normandy Beach Properties Corp. v. Adams, 126 Fla. 844, 171 So. 796 (1937). Here, the default judgment was held to be erroneous on grounds the original complaint failed to state a cause of action. Wells Fargo, 496 So. 2d at 246. The effect was to return this proceeding to the lower court as though the e…
-
Nichols v. Ellis S. Tarsches, 429 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. Nelson, 68 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1953); Acme Specialty Corp. v. City of Miami, 292 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Schooley v. Judd, 149 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 155 So. 2d 615 (Fla.1963); see also Normandy Beach Properties Corp. v. Adams, 126 Fla. 844, 171 So. 796 (Fla.1937) (where the second amended complaint in a case on remand from appellate court alleged an issue not contained in the first complaint, the prior appellate decision was not res judicata as to that issue). I would also grant Tars…
Authorities Cited
- Normandy Beach Props. Corp. v. Adams, 107 Fla. 583 (Fla. 1933)