Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp.

487 So. 2d 1079, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 579, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1986

DocketNo. 85-48

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 487 So. 2d 1079 (Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp.) 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

Muckenfuss v. Deltona Corp., 487 So. 2d 1079, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 579, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal by a county property appraiser from a judgment which determined that he had made an improper evaluation of appellee’s land for tax purposes. We affirm the judgment. Although there was perhaps a legitimate question in appellants’ minds as to the existence of a justiciable issue of fact when the lawsuit was initially filed, this question of fact was removed when it was established that appellants were incorrect. See Muckenfuss v. Miller, 421 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. den. 430 So.2d 450, rev. den. 430 So.2d 451 (Fla.1983). Because a substantial portion of this lawsuit and this appeal consisted of a legal controversy in which there was virtually a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact, we reverse the order denying attorneys fees. This cause is remanded to the trial court for an assessment of fees for appellee’s attorney, to be paid by appellants, in an amount to be assessed by the trial judge. Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So.2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den. 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980); Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Judgment AFFIRMED; order QUASHED; REMANDED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal by a county property appraiser from a judgment which determined that he had made an improper evaluation of appellee’s land for tax purposes. We affirm the judgment. Although there was perhaps a legitimate question in appellants’ minds as to the existence of a justiciable issue of fact when the lawsuit was initially filed, this question of fact was removed when it was established that appellants were incorrect. See Muckenfuss v. Miller, 421 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. den. 430 So.2d 450, rev. den. 430 So.2d 451 (Fla.1983). Because a substantial portion of this lawsuit and this appeal consisted of a legal controversy in which there was virtually a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact, we reverse the order denying attorneys fees. This cause is remanded to the trial court for an assessment of fees for appellee’s attorney, to be paid by appellants, in an amount to be assessed by the trial judge. Allen v. Estate of Dutton, 384 So.2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den. 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980); Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Judgment AFFIRMED; order QUASHED; REMANDED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 So. 2d 1079, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 579, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muckenfuss-v-deltona-corp-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack