Groover v. Adiv Holding Co., 66-967
| Decision Date | 12 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 66-967,66-967 |
| Citation | 202 So.2d 103 |
| Parties | J. Erwin GROOVER, Appellant, v. ADIV HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, T. J. Bomar, Individually and as Trustee, and Helen G. Bomar, and Humble Oil & Refining Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pruitt & Pruitt, Miami, for appellant.
Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, for Adiv Holding Co., Forrest & Friedman, Miami, for Bomar, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler and Peter J. Winders, Tampa, for Humble Oil & Refining Co., appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The plaintiff, J. E. Groover, appeals from a final decree of dismissal of his second amended complaint for declaratory decree against the defendants, Adiv Holding Company, et al.
A final hearing was held on the issues raised by plaintiff's second amended complaint, as well as the undisposed motions and answers of the defendants. At its conclusion, the defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal under Rule 1.35(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 1965 Revision, 30 F.S.A. The chancellor dismissed the cause. In his final decree he made the findings that there was no justiciable issue; that the amended complaint and testimony were insufficient to entitle plaintiff to a declaratory decree, and that there was no bona fide dispute between the parties which presented a justiciable question.
Plaintiff's claim for reversal on appeal is directed solely to the question of whether the second amended complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action to entitle him to a declaratory decree. This does not appear, however, to have been the basis for the ruling by the chancellor. His ruling indicates that it was based on both the insufficiency of the complaint and the evidence offered by plaintiff in support thereof. See Rule 1.35(b), supra.
Even if we assume, without deciding, that the second amended complaint alleged sufficient factual allegations to withstand a motion to dismiss, we are then confronted with the question of whether upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown a right to relief after the presentation of his evidence.
The plaintiff alleged certain factual matters in his second amended complaint and offered evidence in support thereof. The factual issues alleged in his complaint for declaratory decree are to be tried and determined in the same manner as other issues of fact in other civil actions in the circuit court in which the proceeding is pending. Section 87.08, Florida Statutes F.S.A.; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. B. & B. Chemical Co., Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 125.
The plaintiff therefore has the burden of establishing the existence of a present, actual controversy, 1 as well as proving the material allegations of his second amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelner v. Woody
...court's ruling is accorded great deference, and appellants have the burden of showing clear error for reversal. Groover v. Adiv Holding Co., 202 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Based upon this standard, we conclude that appellants have not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discreti......
-
Carberry v. Foley
...Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 711; Gibson v. Gibson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 388; Groover v. Adiv Holding Company, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 103; Rule 1.420(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. As to the ruling on the constructive trust, in order to establi......
-
Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe Coll.
...Stat. (2009). As the party seeking a declaration of rights, Rhea has the burden to demonstrate entitlement. Groover v. Adiv Holding Co., 202 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). To be entitled to a declaratory judgment, Rhea must demonstrate that (1) a good-faith dispute exists between the pa......
-
Keene v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, etc., Case No. 5D07-3058 (Fla. App. 12/19/2008)
...for review denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1985); Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ramanovski, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Groover v. Adiv Holding Co., 202 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Because our review centers on the appropriate interpretation of various provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, we wil......