Centennial Homeowners Assn. v. Dolomite Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1DissentSchwartz, Senior Judge
I believe that the court’s decision is in conflict with two fundamental principles of law.
I
In Centennial Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Dolomite Co., 30 So.3d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed), we unquali-fiedly affirmed a final judgment of the trial court which included the equally unqualified provisions that:
1. DOLOMITE owns and is entitled to immediate possession of the Subject Property. The Clerk of this Court shall forthwith enter a Writ of Possession as requested by DOLOMITE with regard to the Subject Property.
2. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Summary Final…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JulianoSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
- Mendelson v. MendelsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
- Wilcox v. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
- Dines v. FLA. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. StackDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.