Surf Colony Dock Ass'n, Inc. v. Vanderbilt Towers Unit No. 1 of Naples Ass'n, Inc., 97-00956
| Decision Date | 04 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-00956,97-00956 |
| Citation | 708 So.2d 304 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D632 SURF COLONY DOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. VANDERBILT TOWERS UNIT # 1 OF NAPLES ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Corporation Not for Profit; Vanderbilt Towers of Naples, Inc., a Florida Corporation Not for Profit, et. al., Appellees. |
Ronald W. Ritchie of Ronald W. Ritchie, P.A., Naples, for Appellant.
Robert G. Menzies of Roetzel & Andress, P.A., Naples, for Appellees.
The defendants in this suit obtained a summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. We conclude that neither doctrine applies to the case. For that reason, and because the record discloses genuine issues of material fact, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
This litigation involves the efforts of Surf Colony Dock Association, Inc., to quiet title to a parcel of land and adjacent easements. The land is under water and is the site of a number of boat docks. The docks are surrounded by a promenade deck constructed in an area subject to easements for that purpose. Surf Colony's opponents are the owners' associations in a number of condominiums situated around the site.
In a 1986 suit brought by the same associations, Surf Colony counterclaimed to quiet title to the same underwater land and easements. During the non-jury trial of that case, Surf Colony moved to amend its allegations concerning the chain of title to the underwater land, and to introduce a deed it had just acquired from Mayflower Realty (the "Mayflower deed"). The associations objected, and the trial court refused to permit the amendment or the introduction of the Mayflower deed. At the conclusion of the trial the court denied the counterclaim, finding that Surf Colony's claim to title was based on a wild deed.
After its unsuccessful appeal of the 1986 ruling, Surf Colony filed this quiet title action against the associations. This time, its alleged chain of title included the Mayflower deed in addition to all the sources of title it had alleged in the 1986 counterclaim. The associations moved for summary judgment, contending the action was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. They asked the court to take judicial notice of all matters filed in the 1986 case, at both the trial and the appellate level.
At the hearing on the associations' motion, the parties and the court agreed that the sole issue was whether the Mayflower deed could be the subject of this cause of action. The associations submitted a binder of documents, consisting of the complaint in this case, the counterclaim in the 1986 case, the final judgment in the 1986 case, various documents from Surf Colony's appeal of that judgment, and a portion of the trial transcript in the 1986 case. 1 In opposition to the motion, Surf Colony submitted the affidavit of its president, who averred that Surf Colony's allegations of title were different in this case than in the 1986 case, and were based on the Mayflower deed, the validity and effect of which had not been decided in the previous case. After a hearing, the circuit court entered summary judgment in the associations' favor.
Neither the doctrine of collateral...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohnsack v. AMSOUTH BANK OF FLORIDA, 98-1770.
...the record will not support application of the doctrine of res judicata. See, e.g., Surf Colony Dock Ass'n, Inc. v. Vanderbilt Towers Unit # 1 of Naples Ass'n, Inc., 708 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (application of "the doctrine of res judicata requires that the two actions share an id......