HENRY YUSEM, BRIAN YUSEM, ANDREW CARLTON, AND H.Y. (WYNCREEK), INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT BUTLER, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reconsidered whether the trial court's judgment could be affirmed under the "Tipsy Coachman" rule (right result, wrong reason). The court affirmed the denial of Butler's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims based on lack of justifiable reliance rather than due diligence, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on attorney's fees in the FDIC litigation.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that Butler did not prevail on fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims, as the factual findings actually supported a failure to establish justifiable reliance. The court affirmed the judgments in favor of Butler on breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The court reversed the judgment denying prejudgment interest on attorney's fees incurred in FDIC litigation and remanded for the trial court to address this issue.
[1] A court may affirm a trial court's decision on grounds different from those relied upon by the trial court, provided the record supports the alternative grounds.
[2] A trial court's finding that a party failed to exercise due diligence can be construed as a finding that the party failed to establish the element of justifiable reliance…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 trial court applied the unpleaded defense of due diligence to defeat Butler's fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims. Reviewing the trial court's factual findings, it becomes clear that the trial court's reference to due diligence actually translated to Butler's failure to establish the element of justifiable reliance.”
Establishes the Tipsy Coachman application: the court reached the correct result on different legal grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler brought claims against defendants including fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary d…
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 Justifiable Reliance cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
This case returns to us with the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate to consider whether from the record we may affirm the trial court as to the issue of justifiable reliance on the grounds that the court was “right for the wrong reason.”1 We are further directed to reverse the trial court for failing to award prejudgment interest for the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in the FDIC litigation, under section 8 of the Guarantee and Indemnification Agreement.
As we discussed in our original opinion, the trial court found that Butler’s lack of due diligence prevented his recovery on certain claims.2 We have been directed to review these claims to determine if the evidence was sufficient to support the element of justifiable reliance instead of the unpleaded defense of due diligence and thereby affirm the trial court under the Tipsy Coachman rule. We have done so.
The trial court applied the unpleaded defense of due diligence to defeat Butler’s fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims. Reviewing the trial court’s factual findings, it becomes clear that the trial court’s reference to due diligence actually translated to Butler’s failure to establish the element of justifiable reliance. We therefore affirm the trial court’s decision that Butler did not prevail on these claims.
In its discussion of the breach of contract claim, the trial court mentions that “Butler did not act with due diligence in making sure there was compliance with the LPA.” However, the trial court ultimately entered judgment in favor of Butler and against all defendants on this claim. We affirm.
The trial court also noted Butler’s failure to exercise due diligence in its discussion of the breach of fiduciary duty claim. Nevertheless, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Butler on this claim. We affirm.
We reverse the judgment to the extent it denied Butler’s claim for prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees incurred in the FDIC litigation under section 8. of the Guarantee and Indemnification Agreement. We remand the case to the trial court for proceedings to address the prejudgment interest issue.
Reversed in part and Remanded.
FARMER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010)…PER CURIAM. Robert T. Butler seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Yusem v. Butler (Butler III), 10 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with our decision in Butler v. Yusem (Butler II), 3 So. 3d 1185 (Fla.2009), and our decision in Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2002), regarding the proper applicati…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)