ALLINGTON TOWERS NORTH, INC., PHILIP SEIDLER AND HELEN SEIDLER, HIS WIFE; ALVIN W. ROSENTHAL, CHARLES JACOBS AND MORRIS WEINFELD, APPELLANTS,
v.
S.A. WEISBERG AND S.A. WEISBERG, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES; ALLINGTON TOWERS CONDOMINIUM NORTH, INC., APPELLANT, V. ALLINGTON TOWERS NORTH, INC., AND WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, APPELLEES; ALLINGTON TOWERS NORTH, INC., PHILIP SEIDLER AND HELEN SEIDLER, HIS WIFE; ALVIN W. ROSENTHAL, CHARLES JACOBS AND MORRIS WEINFELD, APPELLANTS, V. ALLINGTON TOWERS CONDOMINIUM NORTH, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a motion for rehearing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarifies that when a trial court dismisses both a main complaint and a third-party indemnification claim, and the appellate court reverses the dismissal of the main complaint, the third-party indemnification claim is reactivated even though the builder-defendant did not appeal the dismissal of that claim. The court holds that the builder need not file a contingent cross-appeal to preserve the indemnification claim under these circumstances.
Yes. The builder's indemnification claim against the subcontractors is reactivated when the appellate court reverses the dismissal of the main complaint, and the builder need not file a contingent cross-appeal to preserve this claim. The builder should not be barred from exercising the indemnification claim merely because it failed to appeal an order that entirely vindicated it.
[1] A builder's third-party claim for indemnity against subcontractors survives dismissal if the underlying complaint against the builder is reversed on appeal, even if the b…
[2] A trial court's dismissal of a third-party indemnification claim, premised on the dismissal of the main complaint, is rendered moot by a reversal of the entire order on a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When the apartment owners of a newly erected condominium sue the builder for defective construction and the builder seeks indemnity from the subcontractors by way of third party practice, does the builder's claim over against the subs survive if the trial court dismisses the complaint against both the builder and the subs and we reverse the court below when the apartment owners appeal? We answer in the affirmative.”
Establishes the central legal question and the court's holding that the third-party indemnification claim survives the reversal of the main dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe builder of a newly erected condominium was sued by apartment owners for defective construction. The builder sought indemnity from subcontractors t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cross-Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing is granted.
Left unanswered from our prior pronouncements in this cause, 439 So. 2d 891, is a question of some poignance. Distilled to its essence, thus avoiding protracted discussion of the facts, the question is: When the apartment owners of a newly erected condominium sue the builder for defective construction and the builder seeks indemnity from the subcontractors by way of third party practice, does the builder’s claim over against the subs survive if the trial court dismisses the complaint against both the builder and the subs and we reverse the court below when the apartment owners appeal? We answer in the affirmative.
The builder, happy to receive final relief from the defense of the main suit did not appeal the order as it pertained to the subs. Several of those subs have urged that the builder’s indemnification claim must perish absent an appeal directed to the dismissal thereof. We do not agree.
In the case at bar the trial court’s dismissal of the third party claim with prejudice was logically premised on the fact that since it had dismissed the main complaint against the builder, the third party claim for indemnification was no longer viable.
We have not just reversed a portion of the trial court’s order, we have reversed all of it. By so doing we have reactivated the main lawsuit and the defendant builder should not be barred from exercising his indemnification claim because he failed to appeal from an order which entirely vindicated him. Perhaps it would have been better practice for the builder to file what would be tantamount to a contingent cross appeal1 but we do not require it.
We conclude by stressing that this holding is predicated on, and limited to, all the circumstances attendant to this particular cause. It is not our general intent to furnish resourceful counsel with a means to seek appellate relief even though no appeal has been filed. Indeed we are not empowered to do so.
In all other respects our prior pronouncements, except as amended, remain undisturbed.
LETTS, BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . Cross appeals are not necessarily to be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order to confer appellate jurisdiction. See City of Hialeah v. Martinez, 402 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also F.A.R. 9.020(f).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The City OF Hialeah v. Martinez, 402 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Allington Towers N., Inc. v. S.A. Weisberg & S.A. Weisberg, Inc., 439 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)