Wilson v. Wahl

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wilson v. Wahl

383 So. 2d 311, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 So. 2d 311 (Wilson v. Wahl) 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

Wilson v. Wahl, 383 So. 2d 311, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal we reverse an order dismissing the appellant’s complaint for the issuance of a writ of replevin. The complaint contains the necessary allegations required by Chapter 78, Florida Statutes (1977), for the issuance of an order to show cause why the property should not be taken from the possession of the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff.

It appears that the order of dismissal was entered because there was another action pending between the parties in another division of the same court involving questions of law and fact common to those raised by the complaint in the case at bar. Under these circumstances, we think the administration of justice is best served by an order which averts the piecemeal handling of the claims between the parties. An order which consolidates the actions, rather than the order which dismissed the instant action will effect that desired result. Ray v. Pentlicki, 375 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); In re Guardianship of Bentley, 342 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270.

Accordingly we reverse the order and reinstate the complaint for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal we reverse an order dismissing the appellant’s complaint for the issuance of a writ of replevin. The complaint contains the necessary allegations required by Chapter 78, Florida Statutes (1977), for the issuance of an order to show cause why the property should not be taken from the possession of the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff.

It appears that the order of dismissal was entered because there was another action pending between the parties in another division of the same court involving questions of law and fact common to those raised by the complaint in the case at bar. Under these circumstances, we think the administration of justice is best served by an order which averts the piecemeal handling of the claims between the parties. An order which consolidates the actions, rather than the order which dismissed the instant action will effect that desired result. Ray v. Pentlicki, 375 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); In re Guardianship of Bentley, 342 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270.

Accordingly we reverse the order and reinstate the complaint for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 So. 2d 311, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-wahl-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack