Limeco, Inc. v. Wall

Florida Circuit Courts

Limeco, Inc. v. Wall

4 Fla. Supp. 2d 124

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1983

DocketCase Nos. 83-79 AP and 83-105 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 124 (Limeco, Inc. v. Wall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Limeco, Inc. v. Wall, 4 Fla. Supp. 2d 124 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the Amended Complaint was framed as an “action to evict a tenant, it is clear from the record that the defendant, Limeco, Inc., is the fee owner of the property in question and not a tenant subject to eviction proceedings under Chapter 83, Florida Statutes. This was, in effect, an action in ejectment and was improperly instituted in the County Court. Exclusive original jurisdiction in ejectment actions rests in the Circuit Court, Section 26.012(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1981).

The Final Judgment awarding possession to the plaintiffs, Jack Wall, Jeannette Wall, and Jack Wall Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., and the Final Judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs are reversed.

Appellant’s Motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the Amended Complaint was framed as an “action to evict a tenant, it is clear from the record that the defendant, Limeco, Inc., is the fee owner of the property in question and not a tenant subject to eviction proceedings under Chapter 83, Florida Statutes. This was, in effect, an action in ejectment and was improperly instituted in the County Court. Exclusive original jurisdiction in ejectment actions rests in the Circuit Court, Section 26.012(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1981).

The Final Judgment awarding possession to the plaintiffs, Jack Wall, Jeannette Wall, and Jack Wall Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., and the Final Judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs are reversed.

Appellant’s Motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Fla. Supp. 2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/limeco-inc-v-wall-flacirct-1983.