MERLE E. BESETT AND C. JOSEPH CZERWINSKI, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
ROBERT E. BASNETT AND BARBARA L. BASNETT, 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.
In this real estate dispute, the trial court entered money judgments against real estate broker Czerwinski on both fraud and negligence counts arising from the sale of property with misrepresented acreage. The appellate court reversed the negligence judgment as a prohibited double recovery while affirming the fraud judgment.
Double recovery is prohibited when the same element of damages is awarded under two different causes of action. Although both fraud and negligence claims were properly submitted to the jury, the court erred in entering judgment on both verdicts, and the negligence judgment must be reversed.
[1] A prohibited double recovery occurs when damages awarded on one claim are based on the same element of damages as those awarded on another claim.
[2] When damages are awarded on alternate causes of action and the proof of damages is identical for both, a judgment should only be entered on one of the verdicts to prevent…
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“since double recovery based upon the same element of damages is prohibited, Atlantic Coastline R.R. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598, 178 So. 288 (1938), the trial court erred in entering judgments on each of the verdicts”
Establishes the core legal principle prohibiting double recovery under different causes of action with identical damages
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBesett sold property to Basnett with Czerwinski acting as the broker. The property was approximately 1.5 acres, not the 5.5 acres the buyers thought 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 Double Recovery Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court entered money judgments against the appellant, C. Joseph Czerwinski, pursuant to jury verdicts finding him guilty of both fraud and negligence in connection with a real estate transaction. Since the damages awarded on the negligence claim amounted to a prohibited double recovery, we reverse that judgment. We find no merit in the parties’ other contentions and therefore affirm the trial court in all other respects.
This action arose out of the sale of property from Mr. and Mrs. Besett, to the appel-lees, Mr. and Mrs. Basnett. The appellant, C. Joseph Czerwinski, was the real estate broker representing the Besetts. When the appellees discovered that the land they purchased was roughly one and one-half acres, and not the approximately five and one-half acres they thought they had purchased, they filed suit against the sellers and the real estate broker. The amended complaint alleged three causes of action. One count of the complaint was tried without a jury and resulted in a judgment for the appellants. The other two counts, fraud and negligence, were submitted to the jury. The count alleging fraud resulted in a verdict against the appellant, Mr. Besett, in the amount of $152,-000 and against the appellant, Mr. Czerwin-ski, in the amount of $18,000. A directed verdict was entered for Mrs. Besett. The appellees’ alternate claim of negligence on the part of the appellant Czerwinski resulted in a verdict against him and an award of damages in the amount of $12,000. The jury also found that the appellees were twenty-five percent negligent, and accordingly, a judgment was entered in the amount of $9,000.
Under the facts of this case, the remedies sought by the appellees were not inconsistent, and accordingly, the claims of fraud and negligence were both properly sub mitted to the jury. Compare Bill Terry’s, Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales, 409 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
However, since double recovery based upon the same element of damages is prohibited, Atlantic Coastline R.R. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598, 178 So. 288 (1938), the trial court erred in entering judgments on each of the verdicts. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority v. Cone Brothers Contracting Co., 285 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
The appellees in presenting evidence concerning damages made no distinction between the alternate causes of action, and the proof of damages was the same on both counts. Based upon the evidence, the jury had a basis for awarding damages in the amount of $18,000 on either count of the complaint, but not on both, and therefore the trial court should have entered a judgment only on the count, based upon fraud. Bill Terry’s, Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales.
We accordingly reverse that portion of the final judgment which awarded the appellees a net sum of $9,000 on their negligence claim with instructions that it be stricken from the judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Schoeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 232 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 2017)…eath and survivors’ damages — are the result of both negligence and intentional torts. Generally, a defendant may not be required to pay twice for the same element of damages. See Dobbs v. Griffith, 70 So. 2d 317, 318 (Fla. 1954); Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Compensatory damages in Engle progeny cases cannot be allocated among the intentional tort and simple negligence claims without violating this rule against double damages. Therefore, if the comparative fault statute is applied to…
-
Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…t, upon post-trial motions, ruled that the jury verdicts against the former trustees and Ostrer constituted triple recovery. The trial court then reduced the award of compensatory damages from $1,085,000 to $246,667,4 relying upon Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), as legal authority for its reduction. The court also reduced the verdict against INA from $345,000 to $99,629.27,5 finding that INA was liable only for the premiums paid on policies purchased after the effective date of the hones…
-
Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ase because the postac-quisition proceeds represented gross profits, not net profits. A double recovery based on the same element of damages is prohibited. Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598, 178 So. 288, 290 (1938); Besett v. Basnett, 437 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, on remand the trial court must reduce or eliminate the postac-quisition proceeds award against DES to eliminate any duplicative recovery of damages against DES based on the unjust enrichment claim. The unjust e…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & Tampa S. R.R. Co. v. Saffold, 130 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1938)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co., 285 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Bill Terry's Inc. v. Atl. Motor Sales, Inc., 409 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)