Berkowitz v. Firestone

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berkowitz v. Firestone

173 So. 2d 161, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

DocketNo. 65-30

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 So. 2d 161 (Berkowitz v. Firestone) 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

Berkowitz v. Firestone, 173 So. 2d 161, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the defendant in the trial court to a suit for a declaratory decree. His motion to dismiss the complaint was denied whereupon this interlocutory appeal was taken. The basic contention is that the merits of the cause are so clearly for the defendant that the chancellor erred in finding that the complaint presents a bona fide need for the declaration. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338. It is urged that the existence of appellant’s rights are so clear as to make the prayer for a declaration a request by ap-pellee for advice from the court. We think not. The complaint shows that the plaintiff is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of his rights under a written instrument. We hold that the chancellor did not err in finding that the exhibits attached to the complaint do not conclusively refute the existence of a genuine doubt and that the plaintiff is entitled to have such doubt removed. See Bacon v. Crespi, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 823.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the defendant in the trial court to a suit for a declaratory decree. His motion to dismiss the complaint was denied whereupon this interlocutory appeal was taken. The basic contention is that the merits of the cause are so clearly for the defendant that the chancellor erred in finding that the complaint presents a bona fide need for the declaration. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338. It is urged that the existence of appellant’s rights are so clear as to make the prayer for a declaration a request by ap-pellee for advice from the court. We think not. The complaint shows that the plaintiff is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of his rights under a written instrument. We hold that the chancellor did not err in finding that the exhibits attached to the complaint do not conclusively refute the existence of a genuine doubt and that the plaintiff is entitled to have such doubt removed. See Bacon v. Crespi, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 823.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 2d 161, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-firestone-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack