TONY R. AQUILINA AND PIETRA AQUILINA, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LESLIE J. MANGUS, SCOT SALZER AND RATNER REALTY CORP., APPELLEES
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 court held that once an interpleader action is dismissed, the court lacks authority to adjudicate counterclaims within that action.
Plaintiffs filed an interpleader action regarding a real estate broker's commission. The trial court dismissed the interpleader complaint but allowed …
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 Interpleader cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were the plaintiffs and the appellees were the defendants and counter-claimants in an action of interpleader arising out of a dispute over who was entitled to a real estate broker’s commission on the sale of property belonging to the appellants.
The trial judge granted the motion of defendant, Leslie J. Mangus, to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that “the issues in the cause do not include one for interpleader”. The court also entered a default judgment for the defendant, Mangus, in the sum of $35,000.00 on his counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The defendants, Scot Salzer and Ratner Realty Corporation having filed a pleading which they designated as an answer moved the court for an order construing their answer to be a counterclaim. This motion was granted.
Thereafter, plaintiffs moved the court for an order dismissing their interpleader complaint and the counter-claim of defendants, Salzer and Ratner, against them. The motion to dismiss was granted as to the complaint and denied as to the counterclaim.
Plaintiffs have appealed the order denying their motion to dismiss the aforementioned counter-claim. Their sole contention being that the court erred in attempting to adjudicate any rights the defendants, Salzer and Ratner might have against the plaintiffs after having dismissed plaintiffs inter-pleader suit.
We agree with appellants’- contention and reverse the order appealed. Having determined that interpleader did not lie, the court had no authority to then consider the counter-claim. Drummond Title Company v. Weinroth, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 606; Hollopeter and Post v. Saenz, 133 Fla. 279, 182 So. 906 (1938); Pan American Surety Company v. Cooke, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 290. Therefore, the order appealed is reversed without prejudice to the rights of the defendants, Salzer and Ratner Realty Corp., to pursue such other remedies to which they may be entitled under the law.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trak Microwave Corp. v. Medaris Mgmt., Inc., 236 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ss the counterclaims without prejudice. It is this portion of the point that is important with this view and result being reflected in these cases. Pan American Surety Company v. Cooke, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 290; Aquilina v. Mangus, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 786. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff Trak (here the appellant) “has shown no right to any relief under its Bill of Inter-pleader.” It was further ordered “That the Bill of Interpleader of the Plaintiff, TRAK MICROWAVE CORPORATION, is hereby di…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Drummond Title Co. v. Isreal S. Weinroth, 77 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1955)
- Hollopeter & Post, Inc. v. Saenz, 133 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1938)
- PAN Am. Sur. Co. v. Cooke, 130 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)