MERYLL FROST, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT E. DASCHER AND FERRIN C. CAMPBELL, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HORTENSE MARIE KERTENNIS, DECEASED, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1974-12-19
No. V-307
RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur., JOHNSON, J., dissents.
305 So. 2d 13 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to assert his proprietary interest in the corporate stock which is the subject matter of this action or his right to assert such claims as he may have against the estate herein in the probate court.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. JOHNSON, J., dissents.

Dissent
JOHNSON, Judge

JOHNSON, Judge

(dissenting):

I must disagree with the conclusion of the majority opinion by this Court in this case. There were too many disputed facts to warrant the entry of a summary judgment. I think the defendant-appellant should have been given the chance to explain the circumstances and facts surrounding the whole transaction. Therefore, I’d reverse for a hearing on the merits.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Palmer Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Filler, 482 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
    …el’s letter of demand and without furnishing the sworn statement, appellant filed its complaint to enforce a lien on June 13, 1984. Both parties filed motions for summary judgments and supporting affidavits. Appellant relies on Alex v. Randy, Inc., 305 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), to support its argument that its claim of lien survived its failure to respond to appellees’ letter of demand pursuant to section 713.-16(2). Alex v. Randy does so hold. While the facts of that case and the clear rationale under…
  • Gonas v. Home Elec. OF Dade Cnty., Inc., 537 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
    …ve construed this statute. The First District Court of Appeal held that “it is implicit in the statute that the demand apprise the lienor that under the statute he has ten days within which to comply or be deprived of his lien.” Alex v. Randy, Inc., 305 So. 2d 13, 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Liberally construing the statute, which at that time allowed ten days for the lien- or’s response, the court reasoned that the owner’s explicit warning was necessary, even though the statute did not require it, because lien…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw