EDWIN H. BIRON, ROBERT O'BRIEN, AND HENRY H. NITZBERG, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN BAY ISLES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND LONGBOAT KEY CLUB PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, COUNTY OF SARASOTA, STATE OF FLORIDA, SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ARVIDA/JMB MANAGERS, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS, LTD., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ARVIDA/JMB MANAGERS, INC., GENERAL PARTNER, AND OTHER PERSONS PRESENTLY UNKNOWN WHO ARE GENERAL PARTNERS IN ARVIDA/JMB PARTNERS, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND KEY CLUB ASSOCIATES, LTD. PARTNERSHIP, A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
Residents and property owners of two planned developments in Longboat Key brought a class action seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a constructive trust against the Town and two corporate entities that acquired their country club. The appellate court affirmed dismissal against most defendants but reversed in part to allow amendment regarding country club membership application rights.
The court affirmed dismissal against Arvida/JMB but reversed in part as to Key Club, holding that because plaintiffs alleged they were country club members required to sign new applications, they should be allowed to amend their complaint to seek declaratory relief regarding their membership rights under those applications.
[1] A trial court's dismissal of an action with prejudice will be affirmed if the plaintiffs' contention that the dismissal was erroneous is rejected.
[2] A trial court errs by denying a plaintiff an opportunity to amend their complaint when the plaintiff alleges membership in a class and seeks a declaration of rights under…
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“since the appellants alleged that each member of the class was a member of the country club, the trial court erred in not allowing the appellants to amend their complaint to seek a declaration of their rights under the membership application each of them was required to sign after Key Club purchased the club.”
Establishes the central holding that plaintiffs should be allowed to amend to seek declaratory relief regarding club membership application rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were residents and property owners in Bay Isles Planned Development and Longboat Key Club Planned Development. Arvida/JMB Managers and Part…
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 Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, plaintiffs in a class action against the Town of Longboat Key, Arvi-da/JMB Managers, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Arvida/JMB Partners, Ltd., a Delaware limited partnership, Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., general partner, and other persons presently unknown who are general partners in Arvida/JMB Partners, a Florida general partnership (Arvida/JMB), and Key Club Associates, Ltd. (Key Club) challenge an order dismissing their action against the appellees, Arvida/JMB and Key Club. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The appellees, Arvida/JMB and Key Club, filed a motion to dismiss the appellants’ amended complaint which sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a constructive trust. The trial court granted the motion, denied the appellants an opportunity to amend, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
We reject the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in dismissing their action against Arvida/JMB with prejudice. We, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s dismissal against Arvida/JMB.
We also reject the appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in dismissing the appellants’ action against Key Club. However, since the appellants alleged that each member of the class was a member of the country club, the trial court erred in not allowing the appellants to amend their complaint to seek a declaration of their rights under the membership application each of them was required to sign after Key Club purchased the club. Sheffield v. Davis, 562 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We, accordingly, affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the entire action against Arvida/JMB. As to Key Club, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the action except for that portion of the action which seeks a declaration of the rights of members of the country club based on the new application the members were required by Key Club to execute. Upon remand, the appellants, as members of the club, should be allowed to amend their complaint in an effort to state a cause of action seeking declaratory relief concerning their rights regarding the application they were required to execute. May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1952).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alpha Sheffield and Wesley Sheffield v. Albert J. Davis, M.D. & Albert J. Davis, M.D. & Assocs., P.A., 562 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)