SUNRISE POINT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RELIANCE REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court affirmed a jury verdict finding both the realtor entitled to broker commissions and the developer entitled to damages for breach of the same exclusive brokerage contract, rejecting the developer's argument that such inconsistent verdicts were improper.
A jury verdict awarding damages to both parties on competing claims arising from the same contract is not inherently inconsistent and may be upheld on appeal.
[1] A jury verdict awarding damages to both parties on competing claims arising from the same contract does not present an inherent logical inconsistency warranting reversal…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The jury is the sole judge of such factual issue [damages] and neither the trial judge nor an appellate court may substitute its judgment on such issue for that of the jury.”
Court's rationale for affirming the jury's damage award and declining to second-guess the jury's factual determinations.
Sunrise Point, Inc., a developer, and Reliance Realty, Inc., a realtor, entered into an exclusive contract for broker commissions on condominium unit …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inconsistent Verdicts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Sunrise Point, Inc., was the defendant-counterplaintiff in the trial court and appellee Reliance Realty, Inc., was the plaintiff-counterdefendant. The action arose under an exclusive contract for broker commissions upon the sale of condominium units in a condominium development. The contract was mutually dissolved prior to the action. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff realtor on its claim and for the defendant developer upon its counterclaim. Each party has appealed. The appellant developer’s principal reliance is upon its point claiming that recovery could not be allowed the plaintiff realtor where the jury also found that the defendant was entitled to recovery for breaches of the same contract by the plaintiff. Our review of the record convinces us that there is no inconsistency in the verdict. Cf. Southeastern Builders, Inc. of Alabama v. Joe Brashears Steel, Inc., 336 So. 2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
We have examined the other points presented by the appellant and have found them not to present error. The cross-appeal asks us to examine the evidence upon the basis that there is no rational explanation for the amount awarded on the counterclaim.
We affirm upon authority of the rule that “[t]he jury is the sole judge of such factual issue [damages] and neither the trial judge nor an appellate court may substitute its judgment on such issue for that of the jury.” Jefferson Realty of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. United States Rubber Company, 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1969). Other points presented upon appellee’s cross-appeal do not present error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…of damages is a matter solely within the province of the jury. Jefferson Realty v. United States Rubber Co., 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1969); South Miami Hospital v. Sanchez, 386 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sunrise Point, Inc. v. Reliance Realty, Inc., 371 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Courts should construe verdicts to carry out the jury’s intentions. Advance Co. v. Albert, 216 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1969). Although a jury may award a greater sum than the trial court…
-
George Hunt, Inc. v. Dorsey Young Constr., Inc., 385 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…out that it may not be legally sufficient to support the award of damages represented by the jury verdict notwithstanding that the jury is the sole judge of such factual issues as the amount of damages. Sunrise Point, Inc. v. Reliance Realty, Inc., 371 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). We suggest that more emphasis needs to be concentrated on this issue if the case is retried. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. LETTS, C. J., and BERANEK, J., concur.…
-
Kish v. McDONALD'S Corp., 564 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…judgment on such issue for that of the jury,” we affirm the denial of the new trial on the trespass damage issue.2 Jefferson Realty of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. U.S. Rubber Co., 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1969); Sunrise Point, Inc. v. Reliance Realty, Inc., 371 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). However, we reach a different result as to the breach of contract issue. The jury was instructed that the measure of damages in the breach of contract action was an amount of money which would place Kish in the same position as…
Authorities Cited
- Jefferson Realty OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. United States Rubber Co., 222 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1969)
- Se. Builders v. JOE Brashears Steel, Inc., 336 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)