PATRICK J. CALLIHAN, RALPH N. LUCIGNANO, EDWARD B. HALL AND ELIZABETH S. HALL, APPELLANTS,
v.
TURTLE KRAALS, LTD., AND J.K. FINANCIAL CORP., 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.
Condominium unit owners appealed a jury verdict finding developers liable for deficient construction, rental restrictions violations, and incomplete amenities at the Seawatch condominium in Marathon, Florida. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the jury's damage awards to two of the three plaintiffs despite their challenge that the verdict was contrary to evidence and that the trial court improperly excluded certain evidence of losses.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by competent evidence and within the jury's discretion regarding unliquidated damages, and that the exclusion of the hearsay evidence regarding the Hall's potential buyer's reasons for refusing to place a deposit was not reviewable because Hall failed to proffer the evidence at trial.
[1] A jury's award of unliquidated damages, when supported by expert testimony on repair costs and diminished value, is within its sound discretion and will be affirmed if no…
[2] Exclusion of evidence is not reviewable on appeal when the party seeking to introduce the evidence fails to make a proffer at the time of the objection.
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“The amount of damages to be awarded rests within the jury's sound discretion, Richards Co. v. Harrison, 262 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 268 So.2d 165 (Fla.1972), and this discretion is considerable where the damages are unliquidated and are not subject to measurement by a particular standard.”
Establishes the standard of review for jury damage awards and the considerable discretion afforded juries when damages are unliquidated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeawatch, a condominium community in the Florida Keys, was marketed emphasizing quality, exclusivity, and recreational amenities with rental restricti…
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 Proffer Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Condominium unit owners appeal from a final judgment entered on a verdict whereby the developers of “Seawatch” (Turtle Kraals, Ltd. and its general partners) were found jointly and severally liable in an action which claimed deficient construction, violations of rental restrictions and failure to complete the amenities at the condominium community in Marathon. Appellants allege the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for new trial, claiming the verdict was contrary to uncontroverted evidence, and erred in excluding certain evidence concerning a unit owner’s losses.
The sales brochures for Seawatch at Marathon, a condominium community in the Florida Keys, stressed the themes of quality and exclusivity by its portrayal of recreational amenities, and the restriction of rentals to a minimum duration of 30 days. Water leakage into the residential units and common areas was noticed following the first rainfall after occupation of the buildings and persisted with each succeeding shower despite several attempted roof repairs. The leakage problem eventually became public knowledge and, along with the changing market, caused the number of sales and rentals to drop perceptively-
On August 20, 1985, Turtle Kraals announced that it had deeded all units to Keys Resorts, Ltd., and that there was an assessment deficit of $197,000 — the association was insolvent. Unit owners Callihan, Hall and Lucignano filed suit against the developer for damages.
At trial, an objection to hearsay evidence of the financial losses suffered by the Halls on the sale of their unit was sustained. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the developer with respect to the Halls, in favor of Mr. Callihan for $100,000, and in favor of Mr. Lucignano for $25,000. The court entered its judgment on the verdict. The plaintiffs timely motion for a new trial directed at the verdicts was denied. We affirm.
Expert testimony was admitted at trial concerning the condominium design, specifications and construction. Appellant’s expert established that the leakage problems in the Callihan and Lucignano units could be repaired for either $7,800 or $2,813 per unit owner, the amount depending upon whether the bearing surfaces or the roof were repaired. A real estate appraiser testified that when repaired, the value of the units would increase. With this evidence before it, the jury’s verdict, compensating Mr. Callihan and Mr. Lucignano for repair costs, diminution in value, and uncompleted amenities, was consistent with the evidence. The amount of damages to be awarded rests within the jury’s sound discretion, Richards Co. v. Harrison, 262 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1972), and this discretion is considerable where the damages are unliquidated and are not subject to measurement by a particular standard. Odoms v. Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla.1976). The evidence here must be viewed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 913 (1975). The appellants have failed to prove that the amount of the damage award in their favor was unreasonable.
When the trial court sustained appellee’s objection to hearsay evidence by appellant Hall regarding a potential buyer’s reasons for refusing to place a deposit on her unit, Hall failed to proffer the evidence at that time, and thus its exclusion is not reviewable. Rezzarday v. West Florida Hosp., 462 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Easton v. Bradford, 390 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), review dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981); Cason v. Smith, 365 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Ellis, 143 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and based upon the authorities cited, the final judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. Redland Constr. Co., 557 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…w to be read to the jury, we rule Holmes did not preserve this issue for review. The rule is well settled that when a party fails to make a proffer of excluded evidence, any alleged error is not preserved for review. Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd., 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Tobin v. Alfieri Maserati, S.P.A., 513 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988). Having concluded that a third contention raised by Holmes is without merit, the final judgment appealed from is aff…
-
Booth v. Abbey Rd. Beef & Booze, Inc., 532 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…his cause remanded for entry of a judgment for plaintiff for the entire verdict amount without reduction for comparative negligence or the seat belt defense. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd., 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1975).…
-
Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Waltman, 562 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…DCA 1985), rev. dismissed sub nom. Ford Motor Co. v. R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc., 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986); Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla.1975). See also Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd, 523 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Phillips v. Ostrer, 481 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1986). Appellant’s remaining point on appeal is without merit. See Prime Management Co. v. W & C Assocs., Ltd., 548 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d D…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Conner v. Atlas Aircraft Corp., 310 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- The Richards Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 262 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Caves v. State, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1975)
- World Ins. Co. v. Wright, 322 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1975)
- Odoms v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1976)
- Wagman v. Lefcoe, 143 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Johnson Cason and Christine Cason v. Smith, 365 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Ballard William Easton & Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bradford, 390 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Rezzarday v. W. Fla. Hosp., 462 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Worth Ave. Assocs., Ltd. v. The Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 462 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)