Moloney v. Margate Commerce Center, Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moloney v. Margate Commerce Center, Ltd.

527 So. 2d 217, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1032, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1639, 1988 WL 36877

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1988

DocketNo. 87-0519

StatusPublished

This text of 527 So. 2d 217 (Moloney v. Margate Commerce Center, Ltd.) 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

Moloney v. Margate Commerce Center, Ltd., 527 So. 2d 217, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1032, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1639, 1988 WL 36877 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the judgment entered against Earle Moloney, individually, for damages done to premises leased by Margate Commerce Center, Ltd., to Moloney Coachbuild-ers, Inc. We do this because there were no proofs presented which would support this portion of the judgment against Mr. Molo-ney, individually. We reject the argument advanced by Margate that somehow the agreed order dated December 31, 1986, assigning liability as to unrelated counts in Margate’s amended complaint would suffice as a legal basis for holding Mr. Molo-ney liable, individually, for damages done to the leased premises when he was not a party to such lease.

In all other respects we find that no error has been demonstrated.

[218]*218AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the judgment entered against Earle Moloney, individually, for damages done to premises leased by Margate Commerce Center, Ltd., to Moloney Coachbuild-ers, Inc. We do this because there were no proofs presented which would support this portion of the judgment against Mr. Molo-ney, individually. We reject the argument advanced by Margate that somehow the agreed order dated December 31, 1986, assigning liability as to unrelated counts in Margate’s amended complaint would suffice as a legal basis for holding Mr. Molo-ney liable, individually, for damages done to the leased premises when he was not a party to such lease.

In all other respects we find that no error has been demonstrated.

[218]*218AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 So. 2d 217, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1032, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1639, 1988 WL 36877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moloney-v-margate-commerce-center-ltd-fladistctapp-1988.