Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 74--1256
| Decision Date | 09 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1256,74--1256 |
| Citation | 319 So.2d 622 |
| Parties | Karl KNIGHT and Belva Knight, his wife, Appellants, v. GLOBAL CONTACT LENS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Noriega & Bartel, Miami, for appellants.
Robert M. Brake, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
This appeal arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute which has been before this court on other occasions. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 807, and Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 9. In the earlier stages of the case, it was determined that appellant Karl Knight, landlord and defendant in the trial court, was lawfully entitled to the possession of his property occupied by Global Contact Lens, Inc., as tenant, and that Global had wrongfully obtained a temporary injunction to prevent an ouster by the landlord. This court, in its most recent ruling, remanded the case to the trial court for an adjustment of the damages awarded. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 807, 810. On remand, a final judgment on costs and damages was entered by the trial court. It is from this judgment, dated July 30, 1974, that appellant brings this appeal.
We have considered the record, the numerous points of law and contentions in the briefs, and the arguments of counsel in light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated, except as follows:
First, we find that it was error to include appellant Belva Knight as a codefendant in the order of final judgment on costs and damages. A review of the record before us shows that Belva Knight was never served with summons or other process and that she was never properly added as a party to the cause. Before a final judgment for damages may be rendered against an individual, it is basic that In personam jurisdiction must be obtained. Without In personam jurisdiction, the trial court lacked authority to include appellant, Belva Knight in the final judgment on costs and damages. T.J.K. v. N.B., Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 592; and Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company v. Ball, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 282. Therefore, this portion of said order is reversed.
Secondly, we find that it was error for the trial court not to include any award of attorney's fees as an element of damages suffered by appellant, Karl Knight. This court has previously concluded that an injunction was wrongfully issued against said appellant (by affirming a decision of the trial court that an injunction was improper) and said conclusion became the law of this case. Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 807, 808; Global Contact Lens, Inc. v. Knight, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 9; and Leybourne v. Furlong, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 221. In Florida, it is clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Gaitan
...Intertrack Transportation, Inc. v. B & G Horse Transportation, Inc., 403 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1976); Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville v. Waybright, 282 So.2d 193 (Fl......
-
Lake Worth Broadcasting Corp. v. Hispanic Broadcasting, Inc.
...Intercontinental Bank, 452 So.2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 462 So.2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1976). The holding in Oakwood Manor, Inc. v. Eck, 358 So.2d 585, 586 (Fla. 2d ......
-
Hillstead v. Averil, Inc., 85-2604
...Lens, Inc. v. Knight, 254 So.2d 807, 809-10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 260 So.2d 520 (Fla.1972), appeal following remand, 319 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 1182 ...
-
Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., LINN-WELL
...jurisdiction over it and therefore Preston & Farley should not have been included as a codefendant. See Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 319 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Never did Preston & Farley exercise a right to participate in the litigation. A judgment entered against a defendant......