Reported Cases
Stein v. Miss Franies, Inc., 417 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Lessors (represented by Mr. Lindell) brought action against alleged guarantors of lease and others to recover for breach of lease and under the guaranty of lease. The Circuit Court, Duval County, John S. Cox, J., dismissed with prejudice counts of plaintiffs' complaint seeking recovery based upon defendants' execution of guaranty of lease, and plaintiffs appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Larry G. Smith, J., held that evidence was sufficient for jury on issue of whether the written guaranty agreement sued upon was a corporate guaranty rather than an individual guaranty binding defendants.
Reversed and remanded.
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., v. Department of Natural Resources, 466 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Appeal was taken (Mr. Lindell co-counsel) from a final order of the Department of Natural Resources which denied appellant's application to board of trustees of internal improvement trust fund for issuance of a disclaimer to 17.30 acres of submerged lands in the St. Johns River. The District Court of Appeal, Booth, J., held that: (1) DNR's rule purporting to require that upland owner have filled the submerged land in order for owner to apply for disclaimer confirming title was in derogation of Butler Act which provided for acquisition of title to submerge lands by bulkheading, filling, or permanently improving, and was therefore invalid, and (2) DNR erred in denying appellant's application.
Reversed and remanded.
Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc., et al., 526 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Lessees of motor vehicle brought action against lessor (represented by Mr. Lindell), seeking revocation of acceptance under UCC and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Circuit Court, Duval County, A.C. Soud, Jr., J., found in favor of lessor, and lessees appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that: (1) closed-end lease of motor vehicle was not "transaction in goods" for purposes of UCC, even though amount of rental payments was sufficient to amortize most of vehicle's value, where there was no provision for passage of title, and (2) lease was not subject to warranty provisions of Magnuson-Moss Act.
Affirmed.
|
