SANTAVICCA & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN L. CARLO, D. C., 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.
Santavicca & Associates sued chiropractor John Carlo for breach of contract after he stopped paying for a promised practice management system. The trial jury ruled in favor of Santavicca and rejected Carlo's fraud counterclaim, but the trial court granted a new trial based on finding the evidence uncontroverted that the system never existed. The appellate court reversed, finding conflicting evidence on the key issue.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding the evidence uncontroverted on whether the management system was provided, because the record showed conflicting evidence on this material issue, and therefore the trial court should not have set aside the jury verdict.
[1] A new trial may not be granted based on a finding that evidence on a material issue was uncontroverted if the evidence on that issue was, in fact, in conflict.
[2] A jury verdict should be reinstated when a trial court errs in setting it aside based on a mistaken belief that the evidence on a material issue was uncontroverted.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We have reviewed the record and find the evidence to be in conflict on this issue. There was evidence presented by the appellant at trial to establish that it did provide the appellee with the management system promised, that appellee was not defrauded, that appellee's earnings increased after he utilized the system, and that appellee breached his contract with appellant.”
Establishes the court's finding that conflicting evidence existed on the material issue, contradicting the trial court's finding that evidence was uncontroverted.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantavicca & Associates, a business consulting service for chiropractors, entered into an agreement with Dr. John Carlo to provide an individualized p…
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 Fraudulent Inducement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial predicated on a finding that the evidence on one of the material issues tried was uncontroverted.
The appellant sued the appellee for breach of contract and the appellee counterclaimed alleging that the appellant had fraudulently induced him to enter into the contract. The agreement involved was one in which the appellant, a business consulting service for chiropractors, was supposed to provide the appellee, a chiropractor, with an “individualized practice management system” for his practice in exchange for a fee. When the appellee stopped payment on the fees due appellant this action resulted. The jury found that appellee breached the contract and rejected appellee’s claim of fraud. The trial court ordered a new trial, specifically holding that it was uncontro-verted at trial that the “individualized management system” which was promised never existed and was never intended to be delivered. We have reviewed the record and find the evidence to be in conflict on this issue. There was evidence presented by the appellant at trial to establish that it did provide the appellee with the management system promised, that appellee was not defrauded, that appellee’s earnings increased after he utilized the system, and that appel-lee breached his contract with appellant. That being the case, we believe the trial court erred in determining that the evidence on this issue was uncontroverted and in setting aside the jury’s verdict on that predicate. Perenic v. Castelli, 353 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1978).
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed with directions that the jury verdict be reinstated and judgment be entered thereon.
LETTS, C. J., ANSTEAD, J., and STONE, BARRY J., Associate Judge, concur.