IVIN BALLEN AND ROSE BALLEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PLAZA DEL PRADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, 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.
The appellate court is reconsidering its prior affirmation of a trial court judgment that declared a condominium association's purchase of a unit for a resident superintendent and the levying of a special assessment for that purchase to be void and improper.
The appellate court is withdrawing its prior per curiam opinion affirming the trial court's judgment, indicating a need to further consider the controlling provisions of the Florida Condominium Act regarding the association's authority to purchase a unit and assess members for the cost.
A condominium association voted to purchase a unit to house its resident superintendent, with the purchase to be funded by surplus funds and a special…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Two points are presented in this appeal by a defendant from a judgment of foreclosure. There is no showing in the briefs or the record that either question was ever presented to the trial court. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed upon the rule stated in Caldwell v. Peoples Bank of San ford, 1917, 73 Fla. 1165, 75 So. 848. See also Lee County Oil Company v. Marshall, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 510, and the cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…a credit at time of sale toward those expenses incurred prior to the final judgment, was not presented to the trial court and is therefore waived. Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1956); Ballen v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 319 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We next consider the husband’s consolidated appeal. He contends he should not have been required to pay $7,500 toward the wife’s attorneys’ fees of $10,000 and costs as she had the means to provide them. We hold this award to be…
-
Schatz v. Elinore K. Schatz, 356 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)….2 The point cannot present reversible error because the husband failed to raise the question in the trial court. See Caldwell v. People’s Bank of Sanford, 73 Fla. 1165, 75 So. 848 (1917); and Ballen v. Plaza del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 319 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). It is clear from this record that both the mother and father were of the Jewish faith and, further, that no objection has been raised in this court for the provision of a particular faith in the final judgment. It is clear that i…
-
Martin v. Pinellas Cnty., 533 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Except in the respects referred to below, we affirm the final judgment from which this appeal has been taken. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank, 497 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Bailen v. Plaza del Prado Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 319 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The portion of the final judgment assessing a $100,000 fine which was, in the terms of the final judgment, “a penalty which is separate and apart from any compensatory damage” is stricken. See National Exterminators, Inc. v. Tr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caldwell v. Peoples Bank, 73 Fla. 1165 (Fla. 1917)
- LEE Cnty. OIL Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 98 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)