Zeigler
Terry
ZIEGLER, James Greenbaum, Jeffrey Wallerstein, and Prime Financial
Services,
Inc., Appellants,
v.
F
RANK, STRELKOW & GAY, Appellee.
No.
82-461.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
Nov. 2, 1982.
Appeal was taken from order of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Francis
X. Knuck, J., which found the cause to be proper interpleader, dismissed
plaintiff from the action, and temporarily enjoined defendants from
filing any further actions respecting the interpleaded funds. The District
Court of Appeal held that: (1) trial court's denial of defendant's motion
to dismiss complaint for interpleader, which simply challenged sufficiency
of well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, did not end inquiry as
to propriety of interpleader where defendants sought to allege facts
not revealed by the complaint, at least some of which, if proved, constituted
valid defenses to an interpleader complaint, and (2) propriety of a
complaint for interpleader and dismissal of interpleading plaintiff
was improperly determined without first affording defendants an opportunity
to answer the complaint and raise and be heard on such defenses to it
as they might have had.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
[1]
INTERPLEADER k26
222k26
Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss complaint for
interpleader, which simply challenged sufficiency of well-pleaded allegations
of the complaint, did not end inquiry as to propriety of interpleader
where defendants sought to allege facts not revealed by the complaint,
at least some of which, if proved, constituted valid defenses to an
interpleader complaint.
[2]
INTERPLEADER k26
222k26
Propriety of a complaint for interpleader and dismissal of interpleading
plaintiff was improperly determined without first affording defendants
an opportunity to answer the complaint and raise and be heard on such
defenses to it as they might have had.
*671 Law Offices Cytryn and Santana, P.A., Lauderhill, for appellants.
Frank, Strelkow & Gay and Carl Schmitt, North Bay Village, Richard A.
Barnett and Steven B. Dolchin, Hollywood, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
[1][2] We reverse the order under review, which, inter alia, found the
cause to *672 be a proper interpleader, dismissed the plaintiff-appellee
from the action, and temporarily enjoined the defendants-appellants
from filing any further actions respecting the interpleaded funds. We
hold that (1) the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for interpleader which simply challenges the sufficiency
of the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint does not end the inquiry
as to the propriety of interpleader where the defendants, as here, seek
to allege facts not revealed by the complaint, at least some of
which, if proved, constitute valid defenses to an interpleader complaint,
see Lowry
v. Downing Manufacturing Co., 73 Fla. 535, 74 So. 525 (1917);
and (2) the propriety of a complaint for interpleader and the dismissal
of the interpleading plaintiff is not to be determined, as it was below,
without first affording the defendants an opportunity to answer the
complaint and raise and be heard on such defenses to it as they might
have, Hernandez
v. Travelers Insurance Co., 356 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978);
see Drummond
Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606 (Fla.1955);
Hartzog
v. Dixon, 366 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded with directions to dissolve the temporary injunction
pending further proceedings to be held in accordance with this opinion.
Click
on the name of the cases below to view them: