Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc.

682 So. 2d 1199, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11933, 1996 WL 656372

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1996

DocketNo. 96-0697

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 682 So. 2d 1199 (Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc., 682 So. 2d 1199, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11933, 1996 WL 656372 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying class certification. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, defaulted under an installment contract for the purchase of a lot under which the seller retained title until the purchase price was fully paid. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to a refund of a portion of their payments which the seller is wrongfully retaining, and seek to proceed as representatives of a class of others they claim are similarly situated.

The trial court declined to certify a class because the claim did not meet several requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), one of which was that these plaintiffs would not “fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class.”

The trial court arrived at its conclusion based on facts reflected by the depositions of plaintiffs. We cannot say that the court erred in declining certification on that basis. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 984 (Fla.1994), and cases cited therein. See also Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 728 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 1221, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988) (observing that the adequacy of class representation is “primarily a factual issue”).

We therefore affirm, but solely on the ground of inadequacy of these plaintiffs to represent the class.

GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying class certification. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, defaulted under an installment contract for the purchase of a lot under which the seller retained title until the purchase price was fully paid. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to a refund of a portion of their payments which the seller is wrongfully retaining, and seek to proceed as representatives of a class of others they claim are similarly situated.

The trial court declined to certify a class because the claim did not meet several requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), one of which was that these plaintiffs would not “fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of each member of the class.”

The trial court arrived at its conclusion based on facts reflected by the depositions of plaintiffs. We cannot say that the court erred in declining certification on that basis. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 639 So.2d 984 (Fla.1994), and cases cited therein. See also Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 728 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 1221, 99 L.Ed.2d 421 (1988) (observing that the adequacy of class representation is “primarily a factual issue”).

We therefore affirm, but solely on the ground of inadequacy of these plaintiffs to represent the class.

GUNTHER, C.J., and STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 So. 2d 1199, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11933, 1996 WL 656372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alomar-v-magna-properties-inc-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack