Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--676,68--676 |
| Citation | 220 So.2d 411 |
| Parties | Leroy E. TALCOTT, Jr., and Donald Andrus, Appellants, v. CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida Banking Corporation, as Guardian of the property of Ellen Morgan Holl, and Bill Colson, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Quarles & Mills, So. Miami, for appellants.
Pallot, Poppell, Horwich & Goodman; Michael M. Isenberg and Ronald A. Shapo, Miami, for Central Bank & Trust Co.
Podhurst & Orseck, Miami, for Bill Colson.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Leroy E. Talcott, Jr. and Donald Andrus (appellants) sued the defendants below and sought a declaratory judgment.
One of the defendants filed a pleading entitled 'Motion to Dismiss' and/or 'Motion for Judgment' on the pleadings. The motion was based on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action but contained other grounds which could be construed as jurisdictional. The other defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the plaintiffs had failed to join an indispensable party. It also contained grounds which might be construed as jurisdictional.
The trial court, after a hearing on the motions, rendered a final judgment for the defendants which dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
The order of dismissal did not state the grounds upon which it was based. In May v. Holley, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 636, 637, the court made the following observations which are pertinent to the dismissal with prejudice of this complaint for declaratory judgment.
'The decree of the lower court left counsel and this court entirely in the dark as to the grounds upon which the bill was dismissed. This should be avoided whenever possible. When a bill is attacked upon several grounds some of which go to the real merits of the controversy and some to jurisdictional or procedural questions, the parties have a right to know the reasons which motivated the action of the courts.
As used in the order being reviewed the words 'with prejudice' might mean that the court determined that the plaintiff had no enforceable rights with respect to the building in question, as appellee construes it, or they might merely constitute an adjudication that plaintiff had not presented a case coming within the statute authorizing declaratory relief.'
The general rule stated in Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, In and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appel v. Scott, s. 84-2667
...84 So.2d 916 (Fla.1955) (emphasis added). See also Mills v. Ball, 344 So.2d 635, 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 220 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Broward County v. Lerer, 203 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Tulip Realty Co. of Florida, Inc. v. Fuhre......
-
Conley v. Morley Realty Corp.
...Corp. v. Trust Mortgage Corp.; Hildebrandt v. Department of Natural Resources, 313 So.2d 73 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 220 So.2d 411 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Johnson v. Thoburn, 160 So.2d 729 (Fla.3d DCA Seller also argues in substance that the complaint was properly ......
-
Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 70-353
...Colson, Mrs. Holl's trial attorney, originally was granted, but the Third District Court of Appeal reversed in Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Co., Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 411, holding that the complaint entitled the plaintiffs procedurally to a declaration of their rights, regardless of ......
-
Floyd v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
...policy would result in a decree adverse to plaintiffs does not preclude their right to a declaratory decree. Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 220 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Reversed and remanded for further consistent 1 Appellees contend that the order dismissing with leave to amen......