Legal Opinion · Dissent

Centennial Homeowners Assn. v. Dolomite Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 13, 2010No. 3D10-1256Published

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

  1. Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JulianoSupreme Court of Florida · 2001
  2. Mendelson v. MendelsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  3. Wilcox v. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  4. Dines v. FLA. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'NDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. StackDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API