WILLIAM A. FIELD, C. LEONARD WILCOX, E. L. MATLACK, R. L. ROCKEFELLER AND HAROLD E. TAYLOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EDMUND R. BURRY, FRED E. WALKER, HARRISON L. FRIESE, JAMES L. LEAVITT AND ALLEN B. FORBES, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 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 the trial court erred in granting summary judgment solely on the grounds that the builder was not joined as a party, as the builder could have been added.
Property owners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging a zoning board's approval of apartment complexes. The trial court granted summa…
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 Joinder Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants-plaintiffs appeal from an amended final summary judgment in favor of appellees-defendants. We reverse.
Following approval by the zoning board of the City of Fort Lauderdale of a site plan for construction of apartment complexes, the plaintiffs, as property owners of adjoining lands, filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming illegality in the approval of the plan, usurpation of the zoning authority and assertion of the right to appeal to the city commission. After reaching issue, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that the builder was not joined in the suit and that the final building permit had been issued. In the amended final summary judgment granting the motion, the court reasoned:
“ * * * [Ujnder the provisions of Chapter 86, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], Section 86.091, it is provided that no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings and it is patent from the pleadings herein that Cedar Lane Developers, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a person whose rights would be prejudiced by any declaration. * * * ”
*531The court apparently assumed it could not make an adjudication herein since the builder was not a party. We do not agree.
We do agree, however, that Section 86.-091, F.S.1967, F.S.A., permits all persons to be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by any declaration, and that no declaration shall prejudice the rights' of persons not parties to the proceedings.
Cedar Lane Developers, Inc. has an interest in the subject matter of this litigation, and under the authority of F.R.C.P. 1.250(c), 30 F.S.A. could have been added as a party to this cause by the court on its own initiative or on motion of any party at any stage of the action.and on just terms.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions for entry of an appropriate order under F.R.C.P. 1.250(c) permitting the builder to be added as a party. This is not to be construed as determinative in any manner of the merits of this cause.
WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalo M. Lage and Gonzalo R. Lage v. Blanco, 521 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ny party at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.250(c). The liberal rule permits the adding of parties by name even after a judgment is entered, where required by the equities. See Field v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 227 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (case remanded after appeal from final judgment with directions to add interested party pursuant to rule 1.250(c)). We agree that the appellants could not be added as third-party defendants after judgment because there was never…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein, 242 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…ey had not violated or participated in any violation of the final injunctive order of July 31, 1953. Cf. Jefferson Realty of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. United States Rubber Co., Fla.1969, 222 So. 2d 738; Field v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 530; and Rules 1.210(a) and 1.250(b) and (c), R.C. P., 30 F.S.A. We find no abuse of judicial discretion in that part of the order which permitted the Attorney General to intervene in the cause in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florid…