THE ST. PETERSBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
J.R. DEVELOPMENT, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, JAMES MCFREDERICK AND ROBERT GARNER, 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 St. Petersburg Housing Authority challenged a trial court's order granting rehearing on the damages issue in a breach of contract action. The appellate court reversed, holding that a party's failure to prove damages is not a proper ground for rehearing and that such a procedure improperly allows a second opportunity to present evidence.
A trial court cannot grant rehearing based solely on a party's failure to prove damages. Rehearing is intended to correct errors in a decision, not to allow a party to present additional evidence that was available but not presented at trial. Once parties rest after trial on the merits, they have presented all available competent material evidence and have a right to rely on the finality of that trial.
[1] A party's failure to prove damages at trial is not a proper ground for granting a rehearing.
[2] A rehearing is intended to correct errors in a prior decision, not to allow a party to present evidence that was available but not presented at the original trial.
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“a party's failure to prove damages is not a proper ground for rehearing”
Establishes the core holding that insufficient proof does not justify rehearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a breach of contract action, the trial court found the St. Petersburg Housing Authority at fault. The parties had stipulated that appellee would pr…
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 Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, the St. Petersburg Housing Authority, challenges the trial court order that granted rehearing on the issue of damages. We agree with appellant that this was error. This procedure improperly allows appellee a “second bite at the apple” at proving damages, an element of proof that should have been proven at trial. We reverse.
In this breach of contract action, the court found that appellant was at fault, leaving damages as the only remaining issue. The parties had stipulated pretrial that “Plaintiffs will introduce evidence of damages as to either Plaintiffs’ lost investment into the project or the lost income stream from the contract, but not both.” As to the lost income theory, the court held that appellee failed to present “any evidence” of the expenses to operate and maintain the property and to comply with the contract. As to the lost investment theory, the court found that while appellee had presented evidence of lost value of the fee simple, since appellee held only a leasehold, damages had not been shown. The court ordered a rehearing on the issue of damages because of these “deficiencies” in appellee’s proof. We note first that, prior to trial, this case had been pending for approximately ten years. During that time, appellee consciously elected to proceed upon, and appellant relied upon, what was ultimately determined to be an invalid theory of damages. Appellant evaluated the case for strategic purposes on the basis that appellee claimed over $4 million in damages based on that invalid theory. Damages proof was brought out in discovery before trial, and appellant relied upon this proof.
The issue here is whether the trial court was acting under an erroneous legal assumption when it granted rehearing, not whether the court correctly evaluated the facts adduced. As such, no deference is afforded the trial court. This is solely a matter of law. See Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla.1959).
We conclude that the court was acting under an erroneous legal assumption because a party’s failure to prove damages is not a proper ground for rehearing. First, a rehearing is to be granted in order to correct errors in the first decision. See Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066,1067-1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). There were no errors here. There was only an absence of proof or, as the court stated, there were “deficiencies” in the proof. Rehearing is not intended as a device to present additional evidence that was available, although not presented, at the original trial. See Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961).
Moreover, the law presumes that litigants who have concluded a trial on the merits have presented all available, competent, material evidence in support of their case. See Apalachicola Northern R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33, 38-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), quashed on other grounds, 130 So. 2d 680 (Fla.1961). Once the parties rested here, in the absence of legal or factual error or newly-discovered evidence, the case was concluded, and the parties had a right to rely on that fact, especially given the lengthy pendency of the action. Since there was no error to correct, the trial was completed and the parties had rested. While this was not a jury trial, that fact does not affect our determination as to finality.
We conclude that the court improperly granted a rehearing on the issue of damages. Accordingly, we reverse.
FRANK and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allard v. Al-Nayem Int'l, Inc., 59 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ect measure of damages and Mr. Allard’s argument that improvements must be considered. Al-Nayem “consciously elected to proceed upon ... what was ultimately determined to be an invalid theory of damages.” See St. Petersburg Hous. Auth. v. J.R. Dev., 706 So. 2d 1377, 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court improperly granted a rehearing. “[A] party’s failure to prove damages is not a proper ground for rehearing....” Id. “Rehearing is not intended as a device to present additional evidence that was available,…1 / 2
-
Levy v. Eliahu Ben-Shmuel, 255 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…rrect measure of damages at trial is not entitled, on reversal and remand, to a new trial on damages. See, e.g., Asset Mgt. Holdings, LLC v. Assets Recovery Ctr.Invs., LLC, 238 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; St. Petersburg Hous. Auth. v. J.R. Dev., 706 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ; Pain Care First of Orlando, LLC v. Edwards, 84 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ; Van Der Noord v. Katz, 481 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ; Platel v. Maronda Homes Inc. of Fla., 423 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) ; Morton's of…
-
Asset Mgmt. Holdings, LLC v. Assets Recovery Ctr. Invs., LLC, 238 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…la. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) ; Allard v. Al-Nayem Int'l, Inc., 59 So. 3d 198, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) ("Involuntary dismissal is proper where there is inadequate proof at trial on the correct measure of damages."); St. Petersburg Hous. Auth. v. J.R. Dev., 706 So. 2d 1377, 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing order [*913] granting rehearing, entered after court had originally found that plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient damages of expenses to support lost profits, because "[t]his procedure improperly allows appe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cloud v. Fallis, 110 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1959)
- Cole v. Cole, 130 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Apalachicola N. R.R. Co. v. Tyus, 114 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Ferris v. Ferris, 417 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)