THERON R. DURDEN AND LORRAINE T. DURDEN, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMPASS POINTS, INC., AND CENTURY 21 COMPASS POINTS, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
Landlords sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision upholding an order requiring them to refund alleged rental overpayments and restore leased premises to their original condition after they had renovated during the pendency of a tenant's appeal. The court denied certiorari, finding the circuit court's reversal of the refund order on due process grounds was correct, but affirming the restoration requirement because the landlords failed to present appropriate evidence and arguments to the circuit court.
The court affirmed the circuit court's reversal of the rental refund order due to due process violation, and affirmed the restoration requirement because the landlords failed to present proper arguments and evidence regarding that issue to the circuit court. The landlords could have presented mitigation-of-damages and property preservation evidence but did not do so.
[1] A party seeking certiorari review must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[2] A due process violation occurs when a court refuses an evidentiary hearing on a disputed issue.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 circuit court cannot be faulted for something not presented to it properly.”
Establishes that petitioners' failure to raise due process arguments regarding the restoration order before the circuit court precludes appellate relief on that ground.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLandlords obtained a judgment for possession of leased premises against tenants in county court. Tenants appealed and prevailed. During the pending ap…
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 Status Quo cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before the court upon a petition for writ of certiorari to the circuit court to review an opinion of that court acting in. its appellate capacity over the county court.
The county court originally awarded petitioners, landlords, possession of their leased premises. Respondents, tenants, appealed that award and won. In the meantime, pending the appeal, the landlords renovated and changed the premises after they had been vacated by the tenant who had not superseded the judgment.
After the landlords lost the appeal they were ordered by the county court to refund to tenants an amount of money alleged to have been rental overpayment and to change the premises back to the way it was before they made the changes and renovations during the pendency of the appeal.
Petitioners, landlords, then appealed that last order saying they should not be required to restore the premises to status quo and were denied their due process rights when the county court refused an evidentiary hearing in regard to the alleged rental overpayment. The circuit court on appeal reversed the order of rental refund because of the due process violation. We, by the way, quite agree with that ruling. The circuit court affirmed the remainder of the county court order. Based upon the argument presented to the circuit court upon the issue regarding restoration of the premises we must affirm that disposition because the opinion does not reflect any departures from the essential requirements of law. However, had the landlord presented to the circuit court a complaint that it had been denied due process because no evidence was permitted on this other issue and had the' circuit court not required a hearing regarding this issue, as well, then we would grant certiorari. Although nothing in this record suggested the landlords did so, we can see how they might have presented mitigation-of-damages evidence as well as preservation-of-the-property evidence to support a contention that they should not suffer a detriment for improving or re-renting the premises pending the appeal of the unsuperseded judgment.
The circuit court cannot be faulted for something not presented to it properly.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nasir M. Ashemimry v. Sheik Ahmed Abdul Rahman Saleh BA Nafa, 778 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…s actually located in Osceola County, the court cannot be faulted for a matter not clearly presented to it. Kadanec v. Kadanec, 765 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Durden v. Compass Points, Inc., 521 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). III. Accounting. Ashemimry contends Ba Nafa is not entitled to an accounting because the amount sued for is certain and because he has an adequate remedy at law. While accounting suits may be prosecuted at law, they are genera…
-
Bennett v. State, 641 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1971) or appeals from final summary judgments; Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981); Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). See also Durden v. Compass Points, Inc., 521 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). On appeal a court should confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the court below. See Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957); Jones v. Neibergall, 47 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1950). We do not address t…