M. O. WILSON, D/B/A HI-LI MOTORS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, A UNITED STATES BANKING CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CUTISS NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS, A UNITED STATES BANKING CORPORATION
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.
Used car dealers who received insufficient-funds checks from an auto auction company sued the bank that held the auction's account, seeking class action relief for conversion. The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action but reversed the summary judgment, allowing the dealers to proceed with separate individual actions.
The court held that the class action was not properly brought because each appellant's interest was independent, arising from separate transactions with the auction company with no contractual relationship between appellants and the bank. However, the lower court erred in entering a final summary judgment without allowing appellants to amend or prosecute separate actions.
[1] A class action is not properly brought when each plaintiff acquired their interest under a separate transaction, there is no contractual relationship between the plaintif…
[2] A trial court errs by entering a final summary judgment after determining a suit is not properly brought as a class action, without granting leave to amend or to prosecut…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“each holder of the checks of the auto auction company acquired his interest under a separate transaction with that company; that there was no contractual relationship between the appellants or other holders of checks and the appellee bank”
Establishes that the class action was not properly brought because class members lacked the required commonality of interest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were used car dealers who sold automobiles at South Florida Auto Auction, Inc. and received checks from the auction company drawn on First …
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 Class Action Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellants, who are used car dealers, seek review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant-appellee bank. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Under Rule 1.220, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., the appellants brought a class action for conversion demanding a jury trial and judgment in excess of $5,000.00. Appellants, as used car dealers, sold cars at the South Florida Auto Auction, Inc. (not a party to the action below), and they received from *363the auction company checks drawn on ap-pellee First National Bank of Miami Springs. These checks were returned for insufficient funds.
Upon sale of the automobiles at the auction, each buyer would deliver to South Florida Auto Auction, Inc., a draft for the total selling price drawn upon the buyer’s bank and payable to South Florida Auto Auction, Inc. It would then deposit those drafts in the appellee bank for collection.
The auction company was indebted to the appellee bank on a loan. A principal behind the auction company (also not a party to the action below) was also indebted to the appellee. The trial court considered that the balance of the auction company’s indebtedness of $16,500.00 was paid on May 10, 1967, by the bank using its right of set-off against the account of the company. See § 674.208, Fla.Stat. 1969, F.S.A. (Uniform Commercial Code.) The proceeds in the auction company account at that time were a portion of the collections received from the drafts, and there was not a sufficient balance in the auction company’s account to pay all of the checks drawn against the account.
To begin with, we affirm that part of the judgment which held the instant action was not properly brought as a class action. The lower court correctly relied upon Osceola Groves v. Wiley, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 700 and Hendler v. Rogers House Condominium, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 128. The lower court reasoned, and correctly so, that: each holder of the checks of the auto auction company acquired his interest under a separate transaction with that company; that there was no contractual relationship between the appellants or other holders of checks and the appellee bank; there was no cooperative enterprise among the appellants or among the holders of checks of the company (not all of the holders were named as parties); each appellant is suing on his own check or checks, and has no pecuniary interest in any other check which may be held by another appellant or other person; that the company’s account was not denominated a trust account; there were no facts which would constitute the bank a trustee for appellants or any holders of the checks of the auction company. The interest of each appellant is completely independent of the interest of the other named appellants and is independent of the other alleged members of the class. But cf.: Harvey G. Carratt, “Note: Class Suits,” 9 University of Florida Law Review 75 (1956) and Adolph Homburger, “State Class Actions and the Federal Rule,” 71 Columbia Law Review 609, 621 (1971).
The lower court erred in proceeding to enter the final summary judgment after having determined that the suit was not properly brought as a class action, without giving leave to amend or prosecute separate actions. Hendler v. Rogers House Condominium, Inc., supra. Similarly, the lower court erred in depriving the plaintiff of the right to proceed in separate actions. Gordon Finance, Inc. v. Belzaguy, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 240; Dade County Medical Association v. Samartino, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 627.
Therefore, that portion of the judgment appealed which dismissed the class action is modified to be a dismissal without prejudice to proceed in separate actions, and as modified, is affirmed; that portion of the judgment appealed which granted summary final judgment for defendants is reversed.
Modified in part, and as modified affirmed, and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…misapplied this rule and have decided subsequent cases upon the authority of earlier erroneous decisions. Metropolitan Dade County v. Maddox, 242 So. 2d 165 (Fla. App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves); Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, 254 So. 2d 362 (Fla.App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves), John E. Withers Transfer and Storage Co. v. Overstreet, 254 So. 2d 855 (Fla.App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Bader, 266 So. 2d 78 (Fla.App.3d 1972) (citing Wilson which relied…
-
Wittington Condo. Apts., Inc. v. Braemar Corp., 313 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…al, Sections 11.4 and 11.5, published by Continuing Legal Education of The Florida Bar. See also Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Fuller, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 568; Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 362; Gordon Finance, Inc. v. Belzaguy, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 240. The improper joinder of parties or the insufficiency of the pleadings to allege the proper representative capacity is not a basis for a final dismissal of the action or a final adjudic…
-
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Pasco, 275 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…no common ground upon which they can join in building a single action on behalf of themselves and upon all other purchasers of units from defendant corporation.” [Emphasis supplied.] See Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 362. The appellants point out, and we agree, that despite the allegations of the appellees’ complaint, it is clear that the appellants offer separate and individual contracts to their customers according to the terms of which purchases charged against…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edelblut v. Grady, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Osceola Groves, Inc. v. Wiley, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Freddy J. Hendler v. The Rogers House Condo., 234 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Gordon Fin., Inc. v. Belzaguy, 216 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. G. Thomas Samartino, M.D., 213 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)