HENRY DUBBIN ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CAPITAL NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 is requesting the District Court of Appeal to provide its reasoning for affirming a lower court decision, particularly concerning the application of legal estoppel.
The Supreme Court is reviewing a petition for writ of certiorari concerning a foreclosure action. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial cour…
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 Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 250 So.2d 663, reading as follows:
“PER CURIAM.
“Affirmed.”
This decision upheld the trial judges finding in favor of the respondent-plaintiff in a foreclosure action.
We are unable to ascertain from the case records before us whether or not we have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., when viewed in relation to the allegations of the petition for writ of certiorari that the doctrine of legal estoppel by warranty deed, as enunciated by this Court in Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Lobean, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 98, should have been applied in the foreclosure action.
Our final decision in this cause would be greatly facilitated by an expression of the District Court of Appeal setting forth the theory and reasoning behind its affirmation of the trial court. Such a request by this Court is not improper. See Home Development Company of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 131; State v. Bruno, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 588, and Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla.1961, 131 So.2d 480.
Accordingly, request is respectfully made to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, that it reconsider the cause, particularly the question of legal estoppel, and render an opinion setting forth the basis and reasoning upon which its decision is reached. Jurisdiction is relinquished to that court, temporarily, for that purpose, upon completion of which this Court will proceed to determine whether or not the cause should be reviewed here under Article V, Constitution of Florida.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Arthur Falkner v. Honorable John R. Blanton, 297 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1974)…PER CURIAM: Upon consideration of the response now filed pursuant to the authority of Dubbin v. Capital National Bank, 254 So. 2d 199 (Fla.1971), we remand the cause with directions that the trial judge immediately allow petitioner to represent himself in the probate proceedings, so long as only the petitioner remains the sole interested party therein. It is so ordered. ADKINS,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bruno, 104 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1958)
- Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Fla. v. Lobean, 127 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1961)
- Murray Rosenthal and Joseph Rosenthal v. Scott, 131 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1961)
- Home Dev. Co. OF ST. Petersburg, Inc. v. Bursani, 168 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1964)
- Dubbin v. Cap. Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 250 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Pendleton v. Wilford L. Pulford and Wilford L. Pulford, 250 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)