RESULTS REAL ESTATE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZY DAYS R.V. CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC., AN IOWA CORPORATION; AND CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION, A DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the dismissal of a prior complaint with prejudice does not bar a second complaint when the first complaint's dismissal was subsequently reversed.
Results Real Estate filed a second complaint after an initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The trial court granted summary judgment on the …
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 Consumer Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In an earlier case involving the parties this court decided that a corporation which purchases a new motor vehicle is a consumer and entitled to the protection of Florida’s Lemon Law, the Florida Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, chapter 681, Florida Statutes (1983). Results Real Estate, Inc. v. Lazy Days R.V. Center, Inc., 505 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). This court reinstated Results Real Estate’s complaint against the appellees based on the Lemon Law.
After the trial court had ruled against it in the earlier case, Results Real Estate filed a second complaint against the appel-lees advancing other theories for recovery of damages. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the appellees ruling that the dismissal with prejudice of Results Real Estate’s first complaint was res judicata as to their second complaint. Results Real Estate appealed from the summary judgments.
In view of this court’s reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of Results Real Estate’s first complaint, its present action on the second complaint is no longer barred. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this case for reinstatement of Results Real Estate’s second complaint, and for further proceedings in accordance with this and the earlier opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Results Real Est., Inc. v. Lazy Days R.V. Ctr., Inc., 505 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)