Landin, Ltd. v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Landin, Ltd. v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District

416 So. 2d 482, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21008

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1982

DocketNos. 81-1289, 81-1575

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 416 So. 2d 482 (Landin, Ltd. v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District) 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

Landin, Ltd. v. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, 416 So. 2d 482, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21008 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions two summary judgments and an assessment of costs against appellant. Our review of the pleadings, depositions and affidavits filed in the cause convinces us that the contract between the parties contains latent ambiguities which preclude the entry of a summary judgment. The appropriate rule is found in Morton v. Morton, 307 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 324 So.2d 90 (Fla.1975), where the court held:

Where there was presented the necessity, in construing the contract, to resolve the latent ambiguity which was disclosed to be involved as to the contingencies mentioned, it was error for the court to render a summary judgment construing the contract, with respect to such latent ambiguity, without regard to extrinsic evidence bearing on intent, and particularly when there was some conflicting evidence as to the intention of the contracting parties, notwithstanding the case when tried would be before the same judge. Id. at 842.

Accordingly, the judgments on appeal are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions two summary judgments and an assessment of costs against appellant. Our review of the pleadings, depositions and affidavits filed in the cause convinces us that the contract between the parties contains latent ambiguities which preclude the entry of a summary judgment. The appropriate rule is found in Morton v. Morton, 307 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 324 So.2d 90 (Fla.1975), where the court held:

Where there was presented the necessity, in construing the contract, to resolve the latent ambiguity which was disclosed to be involved as to the contingencies mentioned, it was error for the court to render a summary judgment construing the contract, with respect to such latent ambiguity, without regard to extrinsic evidence bearing on intent, and particularly when there was some conflicting evidence as to the intention of the contracting parties, notwithstanding the case when tried would be before the same judge. Id. at 842.

Accordingly, the judgments on appeal are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 So. 2d 482, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landin-ltd-v-loxahatchee-river-environmental-control-district-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack