CHARLES A. BRATZKE AND BONNIE J. BRATZKE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN FOWKE CONSTRUCTION CORP., 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 while there was an error in the computation of damages, the record did not allow for its determination, necessitating a remand for correction.
Appellants appealed a judgment in favor of a construction company regarding a home construction contract. Both parties agreed there was an error in th…
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 Contract Price cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The Bratzkes appeal a judgment rendered in favor of John Fowke Construction Corporation for claims arising out of a contract for the construction of a new home. The Bratzkes present three issues for review; however, we find merit only in the issue relating to the erroneous computation of damages.
Both parties seem to agree there is an error with regard to the trial court’s computation of damages. They disagree, however, as to the nature of that error. The Bratzkes contend the trial court made an error in addition in that the total contract price with extras actually adds up to $393,-555.83, instead of $423,553.83 as indicated in the final judgment. On the other hand, Fowke contends the trial court’s error is merely a typographical one. Fowke claims that $423,553.83 is the correct total, but that the wrong figure was entered for the contract price, less the cost of the tennis court.
While we agree that there appears to be an error, we are unable to determine from the record what the nature of the error is. We therefore remand this case with directions that the written judgment be corrected to conform to the findings of the trial court. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
Accordingly, the cause is remanded for corrections consistent herewith.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 226 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…r lot owner. Under the case law applicable to claims for injunctive relief to abate a nuisance, the trial court applied an objective standard comparable to the objective standard applicable to a claim of negligence. Bechhold v. Mariner Props., Inc., 576 So. 2d 921, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Beckman v. Marshall, 85 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 1956). However, “[m]ere disturbance and annoyance as such do not in themselves necessarily give rise to an invasion of a legal right.” A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein, 12…