Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County

569 So. 2d 887, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8641, 1990 WL 176829

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1990

DocketNo. 86-1259

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 569 So. 2d 887 (Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County) 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

Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, 569 So. 2d 887, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8641, 1990 WL 176829 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

In the first appeal of this case we held, inter alia, that “there is no showing that [888]*888the appellant’s claim is, or could be antagonistic to that of other members of the class,” and that “the appellant, as representative party, can adequately represent each member of the class” in an action to recover interest owed to 563 holders of certain bonds. Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, 513 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 876 (Fla.1988). On remand the trial court limited the class, as to the claim against Dade County, to “all former individuals, as opposed to institutional holders” of the bonds in question.

By this action to enforce our mandate, the appellant claims that the trial court’s class certification on remand alters our earlier determination. We agree. Our holding that the appellant could maintain the class action as a proper class representative included institutional as well as individual bondholders. That determination is the law of the case. Allen v. School Bd. of Broward County, 522 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Nichols v. Tarsches, 429 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla.1983).

Reversed and remanded for consistent proceedings.

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

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

In the first appeal of this case we held, inter alia, that “there is no showing that [888]*888the appellant’s claim is, or could be antagonistic to that of other members of the class,” and that “the appellant, as representative party, can adequately represent each member of the class” in an action to recover interest owed to 563 holders of certain bonds. Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, 513 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 876 (Fla.1988). On remand the trial court limited the class, as to the claim against Dade County, to “all former individuals, as opposed to institutional holders” of the bonds in question.

By this action to enforce our mandate, the appellant claims that the trial court’s class certification on remand alters our earlier determination. We agree. Our holding that the appellant could maintain the class action as a proper class representative included institutional as well as individual bondholders. That determination is the law of the case. Allen v. School Bd. of Broward County, 522 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Nichols v. Tarsches, 429 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla.1983).

Reversed and remanded for consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 So. 2d 887, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8641, 1990 WL 176829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hessen-v-metropolitan-dade-county-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack