HOLLYWOOD, INC., AND HOME SEEKERS REALTY COMPANY, FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
HOLLYWOOD, INC., AND HOME SEEKERS REALTY COMPANY, FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, APPELLANTS,
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
285 So. 2d 684
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1973)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the briefs and record in this case, it appears to us that the judgment should be affirmed in all respects, except the complete cancellation of the deed from Home Seekers Realty Company to Hollywood, Inc., dated March 2, 1971. That deed was effective to convey Home Seekers Realty Company’s reversionary interest referred to in the final judgment. Thus, said deed should be cancelled or held for naught only as it purports to convey a greater interest in the property in question than Home Seekers Realty Company s possibility of reverter. Affirmed as modified.
OWEN, C. J. , and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. City OF OPA Locka, 368 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…efore not recoverable under Section 627.428(1). Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunkel, 363 So. 2d 190, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see Smith v. Conlon, 355 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Central Mutual Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Furthermore, although Opa Locka was a nominal party plaintiff, the judgment in this case clearly inured entirely to the benefit of Travelers which was not entitled to fees under the holding in Roberts v. Carter, 350 So. 2d 78, 7…
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 372 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ttorney’s fees and other costs; the appellant did. Although Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1971) deals with recovery of attorney’s fees in a direct action, it was held, in Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), that contribution between two insurance carriers was not allowed since Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1971) did not specifically provide for it. Furthermore, it would be against the public policy and legislative intent of t…
-
Smith v. Conlon, 355 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…rial court was correct in ruling that American Bankers is not entitled to attorneys fees as it is neither an insured, nor a beneficiary as contemplated by Section 627.428, supra. Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, 285 So. 2d 684 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the order on motion for attorneys fees is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to modify the order to reflect that Smith is “entitled” to attorneys fees, a…