DALE M. SCHUPPENER AND GLADYS C. SCHUPPENER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDREW F. BRUNO AND FRANCES A. BRUNO, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES; DALE M. SCHUPPENER AND GLADYS C. SCHUPPENER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES, V. ANDREW F. BRUNO AND FRANCES A. BRUNO, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 dismissed the appeal regarding specific performance as moot and estopped, and affirmed the damages award for breach of contract.
Buyers sued sellers for specific performance and damages related to a real estate purchase agreement. The transaction closed under court order after t…
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 Title Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY,* Judge.
These consolidated appeals are brought by the appellants as sellers of certain real property of which appellees were the buyers. Summary final judgment granting specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement to appellee-buyers is the subject of Case Number 78-2652. A final judgment awarding damages to appellees for breach of that contract is the subject of Appeal Number 79-909.
Subsequent to entry of the summary final judgment and filing of the notice of appeal the parties closed the transaction pursuant to court order, exchanging funds and a mortgage for a warranty deed. Ap-pellees are in possession and have renovated the premises. Appellants have accepted the purchase price and recorded a mortgage. Under these circumstances the issues in appeal number 78-2652 appear to us to be moot. In any event, appellants have knowingly and voluntarily accepted benefits under the summary final judgment and they are therefore estopped to seek reversal of that judgment. Rayle v. Merrill, 141 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). We dismiss that appeal.
The award of damages was calculated to compensate appellees for loss of rentals and miscellaneous expenses incurred by reason of appellants’ failure to exercise due diligence to remove a title defect so that a timely closing might be effectuated. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support that award.
Appellee cross-appeals the amount of the award. We conclude that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.
No reversible error appearing in the record, we affirm the final judgment.
Appeal No. 78-2652: DISMISSED.
Appeal No. 79-909: AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ, concur. *
Did not participate in oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saenz v. Rigau & Rigau, P.A., 549 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…s of title to the land. By knowingly and voluntarily accepting the benefits of the judgment vis-a-vis Ms. Nick-less, the plaintiff is estopped to seek reversal of that judgment. Erwin v. Brooks, 297 So. 2d 314 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Schuppener v. Bruno, 395 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur. . In light of the resolution of this appeal, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether…
Authorities Cited
- Rayle v. Merrill, 141 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)