Equitable Partners, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Equitable Partners, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

596 So. 2d 813, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4478, 1992 WL 79715

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1363

StatusPublished

This text of 596 So. 2d 813 (Equitable Partners, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) 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

Equitable Partners, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 596 So. 2d 813, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4478, 1992 WL 79715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a declaratory judgment entered against it. Specifically, it first claims that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss this case for failure to join an indispensable party. We reject that contention. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So.2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Secondly, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply Ohio law to the substantive legal issue of agency, appellant having claimed that it had a right to rely on the representations of agents of FDIC. The trial court concluded that appellant had a duty to inquire into the authority of the agents of FDIC, a government agency, to enter into a contract, citing Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984). However, Ohio law is in accord. See, e.g., Gaston v. Bureau of Employment Services, 17 Ohio App.3d. 12, 477 N.E.2d 460 (1983). Furthermore, the trial court found that appellant had actual knowledge of the limitations on the agent’s authority.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a declaratory judgment entered against it. Specifically, it first claims that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss this case for failure to join an indispensable party. We reject that contention. See Phillips v. Choate, 456 So.2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Secondly, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply Ohio law to the substantive legal issue of agency, appellant having claimed that it had a right to rely on the representations of agents of FDIC. The trial court concluded that appellant had a duty to inquire into the authority of the agents of FDIC, a government agency, to enter into a contract, citing Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984). However, Ohio law is in accord. See, e.g., Gaston v. Bureau of Employment Services, 17 Ohio App.3d. 12, 477 N.E.2d 460 (1983). Furthermore, the trial court found that appellant had actual knowledge of the limitations on the agent’s authority.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 So. 2d 813, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4478, 1992 WL 79715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equitable-partners-inc-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corp-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack