florida personal injury firm, district court of appeals
Ft. Lauderdale, Broward, accident attorney, accident lawyer
personal injury lawyer, florida attorney, personal injury attorney, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward
VERSION EN ESPANOL
NURSING HOME ABUSE
personal injury lawyer, florida attorney, personal injury attorney, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward, accident attorney, accident lawyer
VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
 Car Accidents
 Motorcycle Accidents
 Bus Accidents
 Bicycle Accidents
OTHER ACCIDENTS
 Trip/Slip & Fall
 Construction Accidents
MALPRACTICE
 Legal Malpractice
 Medical Malpractice
 HMO Malpractice
OTHER AREAS
OF PRACTICE
 Florida Crime Victims
 Dog Bites
 Class Actions
 Product Liability
 Dangerous Drugs
BIOGRAPHIES OF LAWYERS IN OUR FIRM
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS

NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF VERDICTS

OUR APPELLATE CASES
OUR SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT
LEGAL LINKS
OUR LOCATION /
DIRECTORIES
SITE MAP
ARTICLES
HOME

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:

TGI Friday's v. Dvorak Goldenberg
Doe Calloway
Dutcher Paul
Fostock Zeigler
Zeigler 2 Andrews
Fields Bowen

Dan Cytryn, Esquire
Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
Law Offices Cytryn and Santana, P.A.
1401 N. University Drive
Suite 401
Coral Springs, Florida 33071
(Tel) 954-255-7000


 
 

 

Legal Malpractice | Medical Malpractice | HMO Malpractice | Auto Accidents | Bus Accidents | Motorcycle Accidents | Bicycle Accidents | Class Actions | Nursing Home Abuse
Trip/Slip & Fall | Florida Crime Victims | Dog Bites | Product Liability | Dangerous Drugs | Our Lawyers' Biographies | Press Accounts of Trial Settlements
Won by Cytryn & Santana, P.A. | Appellate Cases | Appearances Before the Florida Supreme Court| Legal Links | Location/Directions

copyright © 1999 - 2005. Law Offices Cytryn and Santana, P.A. All Rights Reserved.