Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc.

705 So. 2d 146, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, 1998 WL 64076

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2941

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 146 (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., 705 So. 2d 146, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, 1998 WL 64076 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed an order of the trial court finding that Pedro and Paula Alo-mar would not adequately represent the interests of members of a class so as to allow them to proceed as representatives of the class in a class action. Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc., 682 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court then allowed their daughter, Nancy Alomar, who was also the purchaser of a lot from appellees under an installment contract, to intervene. After reviewing her deposition, the court made a finding of fact that she could not adequately represent the class for two reasons: (1) that she had not made sufficient payments on her installment contract so as to entitle her to a refund, which was the. essence of the alleged class action, and (2) that she did not have sufficient knowledge of, or involvement in the case to fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class. As in the prior appeal, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in this factual determination. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed an order of the trial court finding that Pedro and Paula Alo-mar would not adequately represent the interests of members of a class so as to allow them to proceed as representatives of the class in a class action. Alomar v. Magna Properties, Inc., 682 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court then allowed their daughter, Nancy Alomar, who was also the purchaser of a lot from appellees under an installment contract, to intervene. After reviewing her deposition, the court made a finding of fact that she could not adequately represent the class for two reasons: (1) that she had not made sufficient payments on her installment contract so as to entitle her to a refund, which was the. essence of the alleged class action, and (2) that she did not have sufficient knowledge of, or involvement in the case to fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class. As in the prior appeal, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in this factual determination. See Williams v. Dade County, 625 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 146, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, 1998 WL 64076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alomar-v-magna-properties-inc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack