MICHAEL E. WEBER AND JANET K. WEBER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
TAM-BAY REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The court held that the buyer's claim for damages against the broker was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the issue of damages had already been adjudicated in a prior suit.
A buyer sued a broker for fraudulent misrepresentations after purchasing a business. The buyer had previously sued the seller for rescission and damag…
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 Multiplicity Of Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The buyer of a business appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant broker in the buyer’s suit for damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the broker in connection with the purchase of the business. We affirm.
The buyer had previously counterclaimed against the seller of the business in the seller’s prior suit against the buyer. The prior suit was for the balance of the purchase price. That counterclaim prayed for rescission and damages based upon alleged misrepresentations by the seller in connection with the purchase of the business. The trial court in that suit, from which there was no appeal, determined that both the seller and the buyer “shall go hence without day.” The court awarded no damages on the counterclaim.
The issue of damages suffered by the buyer for having been induced to buy the business was adjudicated in the prior suit. See Atlantic Cylinder Corp. v. Hetner, 438 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Russell v. A & L Development, Inc., 273 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). See also Hinton v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co., 317 So. 2d 832, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“Aside from the public policy considerations against the multiplicity of actions, there is a basic unfairness in permitting one party to relitigate the same issues in a second suit because he is dissatisfied with the recovery obtained in the first.”).
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marianela Caceres v. Milton, 498 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 279 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1973), which holds that a party may not “attempt to receive a second satisfaction for the same wrong against a different party,” we affirm the Final Summary Judgment. See Weber v. Tam-Bay Realty, Inc., 490 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Hinton v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. & Steve Dellinger, 317 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Russell v. A & L Dev., Inc., 273 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Atl. Cylinder Corp. v. Hetner, 438 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Arenson v. Ford Motor Co., 254 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)