NARROWS CORPORATION, TALL BAYOU CORPORATION, LAGO HONDO CORPORATION, VISTA NARANGA CORPORATION, GREEN RIDGE CORPORATION, LAKE SEMINOLE CORPORATION, AND SEMINOLE LAND CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
BOCA CIEGA SANITARY DISTRICT, 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.
A property owner may continue contesting a special assessment even after losing title through foreclosure, as Rule 1.260(c) permits actions to proceed against the original party despite transfer of interest.
A party may continue an action contesting a special assessment against property even after losing title through foreclosure, as Rule 1.260(c) permits the action to continue by or against the original party despite transfer of interest.
[1] A party may continue an action contesting a special assessment levied against property even after losing title through foreclosure, as the action may proceed against the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party.”
The court quoted Rule 1.260(c), RCP, 30 F.S.A., which governs continuation of actions after transfer of property interest.
Appellants owned property in a sewer improvement district and sought to contest a special assessment levied against it. Before the contest reached fin…
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 Special Assessments cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants sought to contest the validity of a Special Assessment levied against their property in a sewer improvement district. Before the contest came on for final hearing appellants lost their property through a foreclosure proceeding. Ap-pellee then filed a motion to dismiss because of the transfer of title, claiming that since appellants had lost title to their property they were not the real party in interest.
The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss and we are called upon to construe Rule 1.260(c), RCP, 30 F.S.A., which reads as follows:
“(c) Transfer of Interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. * * * »
The real party in interest, who purchased the property after foreclosure, filed a motion for substitution of parties; however, the court granted the motion to dismiss while the motion for substitution was still pending. That is of no importance in this particular matter because the above mentioned rule shows that it is not necessary that such motion be filed since “the action may be continued by or against the original party.”
For the reason that the action contesting the Special Assessment could be continued by the original party, it appears that the trial judge was in error in dismissing the complaint; and we reverse and remand for action consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.