Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Turkal, 87-2361
| Decision Date | 12 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2361,87-2361 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1618,528 So.2d 487 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1618 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Robin TURKAL, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
David P. Dittmar, Pines & Hauser and Helen Hauser, Coconut Grove, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellant Prudential Insurance Company of America [Prudential] challenges the trial court's entry of Final Summary Judgment for Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Kenneth White, the Personal Representative of the Estates of Robin Turkal and Joseph Turkal, in an interpleader action. The trial court found:
(A) That the issues which were the subject of that certain Probate proceeding pending in the Probate Division of this Court enstyled In Re: Estate of Joseph E. Turkal, Jr., deceased, Case No. 86-6005 (CP-02) are identical to the issues to be determined in this case.
(B) That said issues were fully litigated and determined resulting in a final decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction as represented by the certified copy of the Order rendered by the Probate Division of this Court and attached to the Defendant/Counterplaintiff's Motion for Summary as Exhibit "A".
(C) That the Plaintiff, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, had an interest in the outcome of the subject proceeding before the Probate Division of this Court and had a right to participate in said proceeding through the filing of a Petition for Intervention, but chose voluntarily not to do so and, as a result, is bound by the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore made and determined in that proceeding and further is collaterally estopped from relitigating those issues before this Court. See McGregor vs. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323 (1935) and Red Carpet Corporation of Panama City Beach vs. B.K. Roberts, 443 So.2d 377 (1st DCA 1983).
We reverse.
Collateral estoppel may be applied only where the parties and issues are identical and where a particular matter has been fully litigated and determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla.1977); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Weigh Less...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stogniew v. McQueen
...there be a mutuality of parties in order for the doctrine to apply. Yovan v. Burdine's, 81 So.2d 555 (Fla.1955); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turkal, 528 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Thus, unless both parties are bound by the prior judgment, neither may use it in a subsequent In Romano the quest......
-
Sandstrom v. Sandstrom
...litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction." Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Turkal, 528 So.2d 487, 488 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (per curiam). Under this rule, the parties would be barred from relitigating the issue in Florida as to wheth......
-
R & S Partnership v. Martin Schaffel Enterprises, Inc.
...determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction." Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turkal, 528 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla.1977); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d......
-
Bookworks, Inc. v. Capital C Corp., 87-2760
...was neither a party to the related action nor in privity with any party, collateral estoppel does not apply. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turkal, 528 So.2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Reversed and 1 The trial court appears to have made these rulings in an effort to be consistent with the decision of ......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...Insurance Co. v. Miami National Bank , 241 So.2d 861, 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). 8. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Turkal , 528 So.2d 487, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). 9. Paresky v. Miami-Dade County Bd. Of County Com’rs. , 893 So.2d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Collateral estoppel appl......