Case ID: so2d_434/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BASKIN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DYNAMIC CABLEVISION OF FLORIDA, INC., Mark H. Ellis, Ernesto Rodriguez and Jesus R. Checa, Appellants, v. LENNAR CORPORATION, Appellee.
    No. 82-2407.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 5, 1983.
    Paige & Catlin, Miami, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson and Michael A. Pace and J. Christopher Redding, Washington, D.C., for appellants.
    Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Li-poff, Quentel & Wolff and Alan T. Dimond and Brian K. Goodkind, Miami, for appellee.
    Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
   BASKIN, Judge.

The trial court dismissed with prejudice appellants’ amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief without stating the grounds for dismissal. As we stated in Hildebrandt v. Department of Natural Resources, 313 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975):

A simple dismissal of this action is an ambiguous and unsatisfactory determination. It operates to leave undecided, rather than to resolve the questions of doubt which are presented with relation to the rights, status and legal or equitable relations of the parties ... in the circumstances reflected in the complaint. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, [Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445], supra; Plaza Del Prado Con. Assn., Inc. v. GAC Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 295 So.2d 718, 719.

Reiterating our holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86, Florida Statutes (1981) requires the trial court to disclose reasons for dismissal, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.