Zenov v. Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, P.A.
This text of 451 So. 2d 954 (Zenov v. Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, P.A.) 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.
Opinion
The final order of dismissal under review is affirmed with one modification, to wit: the dismissal herein shall be without prejudice to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in which the defendants Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff, P.A. are sued solely as nominal party stakeholders of the security deposit herein. See Ullendorff v. Graham, 80 Fla. 845, 852, 87 So. 50, 53 (1920); Lewis v. Howanitz, 378 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ayers v. Homeowners Ass’n of Killearn Estates, 360 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ossinsky v. Nance, 118 So.2d 47, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
Affirmed as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
451 So. 2d 954, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenov-v-greenberg-traurig-askew-hoffman-lipoff-quentel-wolff-pa-fladistctapp-1984.