ICON Development Corp. v. Winkelman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ICON Development Corp. v. Winkelman

687 So. 2d 47, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 207, 1997 WL 20755

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1997

DocketNos. 96-2026, 96-2052

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 47 (ICON Development Corp. v. Winkelman) 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

ICON Development Corp. v. Winkelman, 687 So. 2d 47, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 207, 1997 WL 20755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. The trial court’s determination that our reversal in Winkelman v. Toll, 661 So.2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), of the final judgment rendered in favor of ICON Development Corporation, disposed either directly or indirectly of all of ICON’S other affirmative defenses to the claims of compensation for condominium expenses and assessments by the Winkelmans is in error. Those affirmative defenses were neither addressed by our prior opinion nor argued in the parties’ briefs. The trial court had expressly stated in the judgment that it had become unnecessary to address those defenses in light of the finding that the property was not part of the condominium. Therefore, our prior opinion is not the law of the cases as to ICON’S affirmative defenses two through seven. See U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Fla.1983); Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. The trial court’s determination that our reversal in Winkelman v. Toll, 661 So.2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), of the final judgment rendered in favor of ICON Development Corporation, disposed either directly or indirectly of all of ICON’S other affirmative defenses to the claims of compensation for condominium expenses and assessments by the Winkelmans is in error. Those affirmative defenses were neither addressed by our prior opinion nor argued in the parties’ briefs. The trial court had expressly stated in the judgment that it had become unnecessary to address those defenses in light of the finding that the property was not part of the condominium. Therefore, our prior opinion is not the law of the cases as to ICON’S affirmative defenses two through seven. See U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Fla.1983); Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 47, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 207, 1997 WL 20755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/icon-development-corp-v-winkelman-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack