RAYMOND J. GUERRERA AND BETTY JO GUERRERA, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELDRED CONSTRUCTION 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.
Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict in favor of a construction company in a dispute over an earnest money deposit for a real property purchase and sale agreement. The court affirmed the judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the purchasers breached the contract by abandoning it, thereby justifying the seller's retention of the earnest money as liquidated damages.
The judgment is affirmed because the jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence. The record substantiates the jury's implicit findings that: (1) appellants breached the contract by refusing to close within a reasonable time and abandoned the contract, and (2) appellee proved strict compliance with the contract or that compliance had been excused or prevented by appellants, thereby justifying invocation of the forfeiture provision.
[1] An appellate court may not re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury when substantial, competent evidence supports the jury's verdict.
[2] A jury verdict finding for a seller in an action to recover an earnest money deposit implies that the purchasers breached the contract by refusing to close the transactio…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“under well established principles, this Court may not re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury”
Establishes the standard of review for jury verdicts on appeal—appellate courts defer to jury factfinding if supported by substantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Raymond and Betty Jo Guerrera entered into a written agreement with Eldred Construction Corporation for the purchase and sale of real prope…
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 Abandonment Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
[*328] HERSEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered pursuant to a jury verdict finding for the defendant, Eldred Construction Corporation, appellee here.
The action was initiated by plaintiffs to recover an earnest money deposit paid to the defendant simultaneously with the execution of a written agreement for the purchase and sale of real property. That agreement contained the usual language permitting the seller to retain the earnest money deposit as liquidated damages in the event that the purchasers failed to consummate the transaction upon the terms set out in the agreement. The record discloses substantial, competent evidence to support the jury verdict and, under well established principles, this Court may not re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Helman v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977). Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by reviewing the parties version of the factual background. The jury’s verdict contains the necessary implication that appellants breached the contract by refusing to close the transaction within a reasonable time. The jury apparently found, and the record substantiates that finding, that appellants permitted a sufficient period of time to elapse to justify the inference that they abandoned the contract. Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848, 122 So. 513 (1929). Such an abandonment obviously constitutes a breach of the contract. Also necessarily included by implication in the jury’s verdict is a finding that appellee proved strict compliance with the contract, or that such compliance had been excused or prevented by appellants. This is a sufficient basis for invoking the forfeiture provision provided for in the contract. Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), citing Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The record having disclosed competent substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, and no reversible error having been demonstrated with regard to the law applicable to the facts, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank M. Williams, M.D. v. Dolphin Reef, Ltd., 455 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…rt costs. Having reviewed the record, we find substantial competent evidence to support the judgment. This court may not re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial. court. Guerrera v. Eldred Construction Corporation, 378 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Both contracts provided, however, that if the seller was the prevailing party in any litigation arising under the contracts, the purchaser would be liable for the seller’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Therefore, the co…
-
Valdes v. Munne Enters., Inc., 612 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…was not included in the original contract, (c) Finally, there is no merit to the claim that there were serious defects in the defendants’ workmanship. In re Hallmark Builders, Inc., 54 B.R. 292 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1985); Guerrera v. Eldred Constr. Corp., 378 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA1980); Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1975); Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Int’l, Inc., 267 So. 2d 853, 857-58 (Fla. 4th DCA1972). Second, the balance of the plaintiffs…
Authorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1929)
- Jean-Paul Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)