ARKUS G. AUSTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a trial court's order granting a voluntary dismissal of a complaint. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal.
“There was no showing that in granting the plaintiff's motion the trial court abused its discretion.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Southeast Title and Insurance Company filed a suit for a declaratory decree. After its motion to strike was denied, the defendant, Arkus G. Austin, fi…
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 Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, Southeast Title and Insurance Company, a Florida corporation, filed a suit for a declaratory decree. After filing a motion to strike portions of the complaint, which was denied, the defendant, Arkus G. Austin, filed an answer not containing a counterclaim.
The plaintiff subsequently filed its voluntary motion to dismiss its complaint without prejudice with costs to be taxed against it, claiming that the defendant would not be *175prejudiced in any substantial right by a dismissal of the complaint. The trial court entered its order granting the plaintiff’s motion. It is this order which the defendant now appeals.
There was no showing that in granting the plaintiff’s motion the trial court abused its discretion. Rule 1.35(a) (2) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.; Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Chapin, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 107.
Affirmed.