PHILIP J. NEIMARK, INDIVIDUALLY, PHILIP J. NEIMARK, INC., INVESTMENTS; AND PHILIP J. NEIMARK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN H. ABRAMSON & LANI ABRAMSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Neimark appeals from a judgment awarding the Abramsons damages for breach of an investment management agreement. The appellate court affirmed liability but reversed and remanded regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest and the award of costs.
The court affirmed the judgment for the Abramsons on the breach of contract claim, but reversed the prejudgment interest award (to run from the complaint filing date rather than the contract date) and reversed the costs award due to lack of supporting evidence, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on costs.
[1] An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on disputed questions of fact unless the trial court's determination was clearly erroneous.
[2] The defense of ratification is a question of intent for the trier of fact.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the trial court on disputed questions of fact, unless such determination was clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for factual findings on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1976, Neimark agreed to invest and manage a $15,000 fund through the Abramsons' margin account with a stockbroker, with the account to be …
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 Failure To Mitigate Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Philip Neimark appeals from a final judgment awarding appellees John and Lani Abramson damages and costs in an action for breach of an investment agreement. We affirm the judgment in favor of the Abramsons, and reverse as to interest and costs.
In December, 1976, Neimark and the Abramsons entered an agreement whereby Neimark was to invest and manage a $15,-000.00 fund through Abramson’s existing margin account with his stockbroker. The agreement provided that the account be liquidated should it depreciate to the extent of fifteen percent. When Neimark failed to return the sum of $12,750.00 when the account depreciated by fifteen percent, the Abramsons sued. Evidence was introduced that Neimark had made purchases in excess of $26,000.00 shortly after the agreement was in effect. There was evidence that the Abramsons were aware of the additional purchases based on receipt of confirmation slips and monthly account statements. There was also evidence that the Abram-sons subsequently requested an account status report from Neimark and sought enforcement of the contract terms. Acting as trier of fact, the court rejected Neimark’s affirmative defenses of ratification, estoppel, failure to mitigate damages and negligence. In a final judgment the court awarded $14,766.94 damages, including prejudgment interest, and $394.75 costs to the Abramsons.
The appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the trial court on disputed questions of fact, unless such determination was clearly erroneous. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1976); Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972); Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1956); Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Tarr, 391 So. 2d 244 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Singer Housing Company v. Wren, 390 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We find that the factual issues concerning the affirmative defenses raised by Neimark were properly submitted to the trier of fact and that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding in favor of the Abramsons. See, e.g., Hackett v. Reynolds & Company, 577 F. 2d 948 (5th Cir.1978) (defense of ratification is question of intent for jury). Accord, Toffel v. Baugher, 111 So. 2d 290 (Fla.2d DCA 1959).
We find, however, that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to the Abramsons from the date the contract was entered into rather than from the date of filing the complaint, the date that a demand for a sum found due and owing was made. See, e.g., Politis v. General Hotel and Restaurant Supply Corp., 403 So. 2d 1021 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).
We also find error in awarding costs to Abramsons where there was no evidence submitted at trial or at a cost hearing as to the amount of costs incurred, and no affidavit as to costs incurred by the Abramsons was ever filed or served. Cf. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Sievert, 361 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (award of costs reduced to correspond with record evidence); City of Sunrise v. West Broward Utilities, Inc., 311 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 325 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1975) (award of cost was supported by substantial competent evidence).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on costs and with instructions to fix pre-judgment interest from the date of the filing of the complaint.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Indem. Co. v. Comeau, 419 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…1st DCA 1971); Carter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 224 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). . Rutkin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 So. 2d 221 (Fla.App.); Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Meade, 404 So. 2d at 1143. . See Neimark v. Abramson, 403 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Cohen v. Cohen, 400 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Boyette v. Carden, 347 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).…
-
Keller Indus., Inc. v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 429 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…g defective products and workmanship, items excluded under the policy provisions, rather than expenses for personal injury or property damage resulting from the defective product, Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Neimark v. Abramson, 403 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Atkins v. Keller, 400 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981); see LaMarche v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 390 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1980), and (3) an unjustified failure to defend does not requir…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 620 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…by the rule that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumptively [*1062] correct and will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. Zinger v. Gattis, 382 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); and Neimark v. Abramson, 403 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. SMITH, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur. .In support of this argument, FEC relies in part upon expressions to this effect found in ITT World Communications v. San Francisco…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1972)
- Strawgate v. Dorothea Chase Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1976)
- Bernardo de la Pena v. SC Mota Assocs. Ltd. P'ship (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1956)
- AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Sievert, 361 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Toffel v. Baugher, 111 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Tarr, 391 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- City OF Sunrise v. W. Broward Utils., Inc., 311 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Singer Hous. Co. v. Wren, 390 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- United Five, Inc. v. M.V.R.T., Inc., 391 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)