White v. Miami Electronics Center, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. Miami Electronics Center, Inc.

677 So. 2d 111, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8055, 1996 WL 426384

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3564

StatusPublished

This text of 677 So. 2d 111 (White v. Miami Electronics Center, Inc.) 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

White v. Miami Electronics Center, Inc., 677 So. 2d 111, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8055, 1996 WL 426384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below dismissing the appellants’ action for partition is affirmed because (a) there was no showing of a cotenancy on which to bottom such an action as required by section 64.031, Fla. Stat. (1995); see Weed v. Knox, 157 Fla. 896, 27 So.2d 419 (1946); Serkissian v. Newman, 85 Fla. 388, 96 So. 378 (1923); Barden v. Pappas, 532 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and (b) the effect of any partition would be inequitably to interfere with the enforcement of the agreement specifically approved in Miami Electronics Center, Inc., v. Saporta, 597 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992). See Fisher v. Davenport, 84 So.2d 910 (Fla.1956); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986); Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cohen v. Roth, 417 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below dismissing the appellants’ action for partition is affirmed because (a) there was no showing of a cotenancy on which to bottom such an action as required by section 64.031, Fla. Stat. (1995); see Weed v. Knox, 157 Fla. 896, 27 So.2d 419 (1946); Serkissian v. Newman, 85 Fla. 388, 96 So. 378 (1923); Barden v. Pappas, 532 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and (b) the effect of any partition would be inequitably to interfere with the enforcement of the agreement specifically approved in Miami Electronics Center, Inc., v. Saporta, 597 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992). See Fisher v. Davenport, 84 So.2d 910 (Fla.1956); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986); Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cohen v. Roth, 417 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 111, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8055, 1996 WL 426384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-miami-electronics-center-inc-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack