Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Eureka Housing Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Eureka Housing Corp.

775 So. 2d 999, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16650, 2000 WL 1853624

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 20, 2000·No. No. 3D00-1069·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because genuine material issues remain for appropriate resolution, including but not necessarily limited to questions of standing, implied actual notice of the interests of the tenant, see Lee County Bank v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Bodden v. Carbonell, 354 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and laches, see City of Miami v. Carter, 105 So.2d 5 (Fla.1958); City of Miami v. Gates, 393 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla.1981), the summary judgment reforeclosing the appellant’s leasehold is reversed for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because genuine material issues remain for appropriate resolution, including but not necessarily limited to questions of standing, implied actual notice of the interests of the tenant, see Lee County Bank v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Bodden v. Carbonell, 354 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), and laches, see City of Miami v. Carter, 105 So.2d 5 (Fla.1958); City of Miami v. Gates, 393 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla.1981), the summary judgment reforeclosing the appellant’s leasehold is reversed for further proceedings.

Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Eureka Housing Corp., 775 So. 2d 999, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16650, 2000 WL 1853624 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

775 So. 2d 999 (Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Eureka Housing Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related