Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--550,73--550 |
| Parties | Phillip W. PRICE et al., Appellants, v. HERNANDO BEACH, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank A. McClung, Brooksville, for appellants.
C. R. Talley, Tampa, Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Brooksville, and Adrian S. Bacon, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order staying further proceedings until the determination of a second case which is pending before the same court.
Hernando Beach, Inc. (hereinafter called 'Hernando') is a land developer. For several years, Hernando has been engaged in the development of marshy land in Hernando County adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The plaintiffs entered into contracts with Hernando to purchase certain of this property in Hernando Beach Units 12 and 13. These contracts provided that while the lots would be deeded to plaintiffs, Hernando would retain possession of the land until a specified date for the purpose of making certain promised improvements thereon.
Subsequent to the dates specified in the contracts, the plaintiffs filed this suit for rescission, alleging that Hernando had failed to deliver possession of the lots and had failed to make the improvements within the appointed time. According to the complaint, Hernando had been prohibited from improving the lots by reason of being unable to secure the necessary dredge and fill permits from the appropriate federal authorities. Among its defenses, Hernando alleged that it had been wrongfully prevented from performing the improvements on certain of the lots by actions of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida (hereafter called 'Trustees') and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter called 'Engineers').
Subsequent to the filing of this action, Hernando instituted a suit in Hernando County against the Trustees and numerous other state officials and parties. In that suit (hereafter called 'the Trustees' suit'), Hernando alleges that it was prevented from improving certain of the property in Hernando Beach Units 12 and 13 because of public statements of the Trustees that such development was unlawful and that the Trustees owned the property in those units. The lot owners in Units 12 and 13, including the plaintiffs in the instant case, were joined as defendants in the Trustees' suit for the purpose of quieting the title against the Trustees.
Hernando moved for a stay of the instant case pending the outcome of the Trustees' suit. In his order granting the motion the trial judge recited that he had just finished hearing argument in the Trustees' suit and that he left that the instant case could not be effectively determined until the Trustees' suit had been concluded. Not wishing to wait for the conclusion of the Trustees' suit, the plaintiffs filed this interlocutory appeal.
Clearly, Hernando would not be entitled to an abatement because the instant suit was filed first and because the causes of action in the two suits are not the same. State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Neale v. Aycock, 340 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 405 (Fla.1977); Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d) provides for the stay of proceedings pending prepayments of cost......
-
Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd., 87-3017
...401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) or by non-final appeal. Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd., 396 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). It appears that the better view is that the stay of order refusing to vacate same should be reviewed by non-final......
-
Snyder v. Douglas
...beyond the statutorily mandated six-month stay would be subject to the discretion of the trial court. See Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Fixel v. Clevenger, 285 So.2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order un......
-
Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd.
...we hold that in the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion. See Neale v. Aycock, supra; Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). We therefore reverse the trial court's Time for filing petition for rehearing is reduced to three days from the date ......