Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Central Bank Co.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1756,77-1756 |
| Citation | 362 So.2d 447 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | COPLAN PIPE & SUPPLY CO., INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. CENTRAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a Banking Corporation, Sunrise Point, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Boys Electric Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
Herman Grayson, Miami Beach and Frank M. Brezina, Miami, for appellant.
Shevin, Shapo & Shevin and David A. Freedman, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ. and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellees/defendants in a mechanics lien foreclosure. We reverse.
Appellant, a materialman which supplied plumbing materials to a condominium project known as Sunrise Point, filed a mechanics lien foreclosure suit against appellees Sunrise Point, Inc., the general contractor of the project; Central Bank & Trust Company, the fee simple owner (in trust) of the project; and others, for the cost of various materials it had delivered to the project which had not been paid for by the plumbing sub-contractor (not a party herein).
Prior to filing the aforementioned foreclosure suit, appellant filed a separate breach of contract suit against the general contractor, Sunrise Point, Inc., alleging that by virtue of a separate agreement with the general contractor, the latter was to pay the sub-contractor's debt to appellant in exchange for the continued delivery to the project of certain materials furnished by appellant. Certain conditions, including a timely completion date, were made prerequisites to the agreement's effectiveness.
Subsequently, the breach of contract suit proceeded to jury trial whereupon, at its conclusion, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the general contractor, Sunrise Point, Inc. Implicit in the verdict was the jury's determination that pursuant to the agreement, appellant had failed to meet certain of the preconditions required as a prerequisite to the enforcement of the agreement.
After the verdict was rendered in the contract suit, appellees amended their answer in the mechanics lien foreclosure suit to add the affirmative defenses of election of remedies, collateral estoppel, estoppel by judgment and res judicata, relying upon the adverse judgment rendered against appellant in the contract suit. Appellees thereupon moved for summary judgment based upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hemmerle
...Supply Corp., 224 So.2d 329 (Fla.1969); Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So.2d 423 (Fla.1955); and Coplan Pipe and Supply Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 362 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). The foreclosure action and Second Guaranty action both dealt with the issue of whether evidence of th......
-
Burdick v. Burdick
...Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, only "issues actually litigated" are set to rest. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Central Bank & Trust Company, 362 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Consequently, the successor judge was in error when he relied upon the predecessor's order regarding......
-
Demoya v. Lorenzo
...Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla.1977); Fuller v. General Motors Corp., 394 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Coplan Pipe & Supply Co. v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 362 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Because neither DeMoya nor his privies were parties in Nunziato, they are not barred by collateral esto......