Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

352 So. 2d 121

Bruns v. Archer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 16, 1977

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1977-11-16

Relies on State Ex Rel. Dos Anigos, Inc. v. Lehman · Horter v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-11-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2011

4 state decisions

1019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1For the one point meriting discussion herein appellant asks us to reverse an order of the trial court abating this case. We agree with appellant that the order was improper and remand the case to the trial court so that it may continue on its normal course.

¶2In December 1975, appellant Ronald C. Bruns filed a complaint in circuit court seeking to enjoin appellees, as the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and ex-officio Governing Board of Collier County Water-Sewer District, from creating the Collier County Water and Sewer District and acting as the District’s governing board. Subsequently, appellees filed a suit in which they asked the court to validate bonds issued by the Water and Sewer District. Appellant became a defendant in this proceeding pursuant to Section 75.02, Florida Statutes (1975) since he was a resident of Collier County. Appellees next filed a motion in appellant’s case in which they asked the trial court to consolidate the two cases and abate appellant’s case in favor of their own. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting appellees’ request for consolidation and abatement.

¶3We find that the trial court erred in abating appellant’s case in favor of ap-pellees’ case. Under the law of abatement, while a subsequent action may be abated in favor of a prior action, a prior action may never be abated in favor of a subsequent action. See State ex rel. Dos Anigos v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 So. 533 (1930). Moreover, both actions must have the same plaintiffs and the same defendants. Horter v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 99 Fla. 678, 126 So. 909 (1930). Therefore, the court could not abate appellant’s case because his was the prior action and because the two actions did not have the same plaintiff.

¶4In view whereof, the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

HOBSON, A. C. J., SCHEB, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
/352/so2d/121 · .json · Public domain