From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dynamic Cablevision v. Lennar Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 5, 1983
434 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 82-2407.

July 5, 1983.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Phillip W. Knight, J.

Paige Catlin, Miami, Dow, Lohnes Albertson and Michael A. Pace and J. Christopher Redding, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel Wolff and Alan T. Dimond and Brian K. Goodkind, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.


The trial court dismissed with prejudice appellants' amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief without stating the grounds for dismissal. As we stated in Hildebrandt v. Department of Natural Resources, 313 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975):

A simple dismissal of this action is an ambiguous and unsatisfactory determination. It operates to leave undecided, rather than to resolve the questions of doubt which are presented with relation to the rights, status and legal or equitable relations of the parties . . . in the circumstances reflected in the complaint. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, [Fla. 1952, 56 So.2d 445], supra; Plaza Del Prado Con. Assn., Inc. v. GAC Properties, Inc., Fla.App. 1974, 295 So.2d 718, 719.

Reiterating our holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1981) requires the trial court to disclose reasons for dismissal, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Dynamic Cablevision v. Lennar Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 5, 1983
434 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Dynamic Cablevision v. Lennar Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DYNAMIC CABLEVISION OF FLORIDA, INC., MARK H. ELLIS, ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ AND…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 5, 1983

Citations

434 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)