Gil v. De Marco
This text of 296 So. 2d 660 (Gil v. De Marco) 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.
Opinion
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s counterclaim, in an action by plaintiff seeking an injunction against defendant’s alleged violation of a zoning resolution.
The complaint presented two issues:1 (1) whether the two buildings (one of plaintiff’s and one of defendant’s) were in violation of a provision of the zoning ordinance which required “two hour fire resistance,” and (2) whether the buildings were in violation of a provision of the zoning ordinance which required that the first story of any building erected without set [661]*661back from the lot line be constructed of masonry.
Upon conflicting testimony, the trial judge denied the applications for injunction as to the first ground. North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla. App.1959, 114 So.2d 347. The court did not rule upon the applicability of the second provision of the ordinance, i. e., the requirement for masonry construction. The denial of relief upon a complaint will ordinarily act as a denial of all claims for relief contained in the complaint. An exception exists where, as here, the record affirmatively shows that the entire case was not adjudicated.
We affirm the denial of the injunction upon the portion of the ordinance relied upon but remand for a consideration of the second claimed violation of the zoning ordinance.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
296 So. 2d 660, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gil-v-de-marco-fladistctapp-1974.