GOLDEN VIEW CONDOMINIUM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF HALLANDALE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SAMUEL T. BROWN, BESS BROWN, HIS WIFE, ET AL., 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.
Golden View Condominium appeals a trial court judgment in a property rights dispute with the City of Hallandale. The appellate court reverses, holding that res judicata and estoppel by judgment bar the City's claims because the same parties and issues were previously adjudicated in a declaratory decree action.
The court holds that under both res judicata and estoppel by judgment doctrines, the City is barred from relitigating the prior adjudication. A prior final decree acts as a bar to a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action and is conclusive as to all matters germane thereto that were or could have been raised. The prior determination that the right to use the parcel was 'for the purpose of ingress and egress of trucks only' was dispositive of the rights of all parties.
[1] Res judicata bars a subsequent suit between the same parties based upon the same cause of action, and is conclusive as to all matters germane thereto that were or could h…
[2] Estoppel by judgment prevents parties from litigating in a second suit points and questions common to both causes of action that were actually adjudicated in the prior li…
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“a prior final decree acts as a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties based upon the same cause of action and is conclusive as to all matters germane thereto that were or could have been raised”
Establishes the res judicata doctrine barring the City's relitigation of the same issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves disputes over easement rights and use of a parcel of land. In prior litigation (Case No. 69-2474), Samuel T. Brown sought a declarat…
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 Easement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
We have reviewed the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument and are of the opinion that under the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment the Final Judgment of the trial court should be reversed.
The criteria for the application of and the distinction between those doctrines is more fully discussed in Seaboard Coast L. R. Co. v. Industrial Contracting Co., Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 860. See also North Shore Realty Corporation v. Gallaher, Fla.App.1957, 99 So.2d 255. The record reflects that the City of Hallandale, plaintiff below, was a party to prior litigation *324instituted by one Samuel T. Brown, one of the defendants below, at which time not only was the document relied upon by the City before the court in that litigation but, additionally, the issue or issues inr volved in such prior litigation were resolved therein.1
Whether we proceed on the basis of res judicata under which theory a pri- or final decree acts as a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties based upon the same cause of action and is conclusive as to all matters germane thereto that zvere or could have been raised,2 or whether we proceed on the principle of estoppel by judgment under which theory parties are estopped from litigating in the second suit points and questions common to both causes of action and which were actually adjudicated in the prior litigation,3 the result is still the same — judgment should be entered for Golden View in accordance with the prior adjudication. The right to use the parcel in question was previously determined to be “for the purpose of ingress and egress of trucks only” and that determination was dispositive of the rights of all parties under the various and sundry instruments before the court in that litigation.4 For the reasons stated the decree appealed from is reversed.
WALDEN, CROSS, and MAGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Clement, 662 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1995)…ral estoppel is a judicial doctrine that prevents identical parties from re-litigating issues that have previously been decided between them. Monyek v. Klein, 329 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Golden View Condominium, Inc. v. City of Hallandale, 279 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 288 So. 2d 258 (Fla.1973). Although federal courts and some other jurisdictions no longer require mutuality of parties as a prerequisite to asserting the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Florida courts have held th…
-
Virgil v. Wise, 399 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…olute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action, and concludes all issues which were raised or could have been raised in the action. Coulter v. Davin, 373 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Golden View Condominium, Inc. v. City of Hallandale, 279 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 288 So. 2d 258 (Fla.1973). As to defenses, however, there is authority that identity of the causes of action is not required: [Djespite the general rule that an adjudication in an action involving a different cause of…
-
Monyek v. Klein, 329 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…ped from litigating in a second suit points and questions which were common to both the first and second causes of action and which actually were adjudicated in the prior litigation. Golden View Condominium, Inc. v. City of Hallandale, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 323. Plaintiff in the first cause of action having pled as an affirmative defense to the defendants’ counterclaim for rescission the negligence or failure of the defendants to discharge their duty to fully inform the plaintiff of the transaction undert…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Indus. Contracting Co., Inc., 260 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- N. Shore Realty Corp. v. Gallaher, 99 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)