From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 30, 1972
264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-975.

June 30, 1972.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County, George W. Tedder, Jr., J.

Anthony A. Balasso, of the Law Offices of William G. Miller, Jr., Pompano Beach, for appellant.

J. Patrick Dyal, of Rogers, Morris Ziegler, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


Each side moved for summary judgment and, at least tacitly, agreed that the case was a ripe and proper one for adjudication and disposition under Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A.

Even if counsel should stipulate for the use of summary judgment procedure, same is not binding upon the court where the threshold requirements of Rule 1.510 (c), F.R.C.P., are not fully met. Shollenberger, v. Baskin, Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 79; Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 292.

Summary judgment was duly entered for plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a land trade agreement. We reverse and remand because there are material disputed issues and critical unplumbed areas. Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So.2d 40.

This suit deals with the interpretation to be given a real estate trade agreement and, more specifically, the provision "* * * titles to be insurable in the usual form subject to easements and restrictions common to the subdivision * * *". Does the fact that there was a reservation of certain mineral and petroleum rights render the title not insurable as contemplated by the agreement? We feel that the conflicts in the testimony of the experts and the summary presentation does not afford an adequate basis for a definitive treatment and judgment.

It is generally understood that in certain parts of Florida, at least, there have been significant oil and mineral discoveries. Thus, a careful pronouncement in this case could do much to insure orderly development in future conveyancing.

For these reasons and sentiments the judgment is reversed and the case remanded with respectful instructions to conduct a full trial on the merits.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C.J., WALDEN, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jun 30, 1972
264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Van Arsdale v. DiMil Land Company

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY L. VAN ARSDALE, FORMERLY DOROTHY L. GROOVER, APPELLANT, v. DiMIL…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jun 30, 1972

Citations

264 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Therapeutic Technologies v. Asensio

We reverse and remand. Not only were the prerequisites for entry of summary judgment not followed, as this…

Clark v. Munroe

We arrive at this conclusion despite the fact the trial court's order recites that during the summary…