Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Falcon v. Mango Hill Condo. Assoc. No. 2, Inc., 17-1029 (2017)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 17-1029 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 27, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D17-1029 Lower Tribunal No. 15-21412 _ Florentino Falcon, Appellant, vs. Mango Hill Condominium Association No. 2, Inc., et al., Appellees. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto, Judge. David Low & Associates, P.A. and Amanda Sidman (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Nancy C. Wear, for appellees. Before SUAREZ, FE
More
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 27, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D17-1029 Lower Tribunal No. 15-21412 ________________ Florentino Falcon, Appellant, vs. Mango Hill Condominium Association No. 2, Inc., et al., Appellees. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto, Judge. David Low & Associates, P.A. and Amanda Sidman (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Nancy C. Wear, for appellees. Before SUAREZ, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ. SUAREZ, J. Florentino Falcon appeals from a final order dismissing his first amended complaint with prejudice. Because we find that the complaint asserted a viable claim and that dismissal was not appropriate to resolve the issue of whether Falcon’s back patio was a “limited common element” pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We make no findings as to the nature of the patio or the parties’ rights and responsibilities under the Declaration. Reversed and remanded. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer