THE COTTAGES AT UNIVERSITY PARK, INC. AND PEMBROKE VILLAS, INC. N/K/A CEDAR WOODS OF PEMBROKE LAKES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNS & COMPANY, INC., CEDAR LANDING, INC., ETC., ET AL., 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.
The Fourth District affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff but remanded for correction of the judgment amount due to the trial court's failure to deduct a $3,500 advance and arithmetic errors in calculating the gross commission difference.
The trial court's judgment must be remanded for correction of the deduction of a $3,500 advance to Mr. Smith and for correction of arithmetic errors in calculating the gross commission amount.
[1] On remand from an appeal, a trial court must correct a judgment that fails to deduct an undisputed advance and contains arithmetic errors in calculating the gross amount…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants/counterclaimants appealed an amended final judgment in favor of the plaintiff involving disputed commission amounts and advances.…
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 Commission Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants/counterclaimants appeal an amended final judgment in favor of the plaintiff and raise two issues for our consideration, only one of which we elect to discuss. While we basically affirm the trial court, we remand for correction of the amount of the judgment to which appellee is entitled in two respects. First, the trial court erred in not deducting the $3,500 advanced to Mr. Smith which it should have deducted. Second, in the amended final judgment the trial court indicated the gross amount was the figure presented by the defendants, and that there was no dispute as to the amount of the draws or advances.
The discrepancy as to the gross amount is the difference between $70,986.11, as stated by appellee, and $70,625.15, as stated by appellants. That amount is $360.96, a less than substantial sum. It may be the trial court meant to say plaintiff’s rather than defendants’ figures were being accepted. That is a minor, easily correctable error. There was conflicting evidence, either of which the trial court could have found more credible, and whichever it chose this court would have to say was substantial and competent. On remand, the trial court is directed to correct the judgment; if it meant to accept defendants’ figure on the gross commissions, as it said, the entire calculation must be corrected. It is obvious also that one cannot subtract a sum ending in $.11 from a sum ending in $.11 and come up with a difference also ending in $.11. Thus, there is another arithmetic error that may have to be corrected.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.