Case ID: so2d_677/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar A. WHITE, Moises Saporta, Gladys Saporta, Jose Abut, Jeannette Abut, Salomon Worthalter and Minnie Worthalter, Appellants. v. MIAMI ELECTRONICS CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
    No. 95-3564.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 31, 1996.
    Keith, Mack, Lewis, Cohen & Lumpkin and Sarah B. Clasby and R. Hugh Lumpkin, Miami, for appellants.
    Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin and Joel D. Eaton, Miami, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment below dismissing the appellants’ action for partition is affirmed because (a) there was no showing of a cotenancy on which to bottom such an action as required by section 64.031, Fla. Stat. (1995); see Weed v. Knox, 157 Fla. 896, 27 So.2d 419 (1946); Serkissian v. Newman, 85 Fla. 388, 96 So. 378 (1923); Barden v. Pappas, 532 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and (b) the effect of any partition would be inequitably to interfere with the enforcement of the agreement specifically approved in Miami Electronics Center, Inc., v. Saporta, 597 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992). See Fisher v. Davenport, 84 So.2d 910 (Fla.1956); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986); Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cohen v. Roth, 417 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.