LEON ANDRESS AND REUBEN FRIEDMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN H. BIGMAN, 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 the trial court did not err in denying summary judgment and that the appellants failed to preserve their contract interpretation argument for appeal.
Defendants appealed a final judgment after a non-jury trial, arguing the court should have granted summary judgment and that the assumption agreement …
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 Intent Of The Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants appeal a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial. They urge (1) that the court should have entered a summary judgment in their favor pn their motion heard before trial, and (2) that the assumption agreement which is the basis of the action is so vague and indefinite that it will not support the judgment in this case.
We have examined the record and find that the question of the intent of the parties in the making of the agreement sought to be enforced was a matter upon which the court might properly take testimony. See Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194, 103 So. 825. Therefore, it was not error for the court to deny the motion for summary judgment.
The appellants have failed to bring to this court the testimony which the trial judge found sufficient to clarify the subject matter of the assumption agreement. We are therefore unable to consider appellants’ contention that the trial judge mistakenly interpreted the contract between the parties. Cf. McClosky v. Martin, Fla. 1951, 56 So.2d 916, 918.
Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raoul Vienneau v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e where contractual language is unclear and the parties urge for different interpretations of the terms, see Rock-Weld Corporation of Puerto Rico v. Roch-Weld Equipment Corp. of Florida, 184 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and Andress v. Bigman, 147 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). See also Ladd v. Amoco Oil Co., 482 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (where material issues of fact precluded final summary judgment). Cf. GAC Properties, Inc. v. Carmine, 258 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). . This court…
-
Marco Surfside, Inc. v. Eggert, 443 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…Affirmed. Fieldstone v. Chung, 416 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Meyers v. Cunningham, 415 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Merritt v. Davis, 265 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Ehringer v. Gross, 182 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Andress v. Bigman, 147 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).…
-
J & H Auto Trim Co., Inc. v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 501 F. Supp. 942 (M.D. Fla. 1980)…r things, questioned the sufficiency of the evidence as to the actual cash value of the property destroyed. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, and, in discussing the actual cash value of the destroyed stock of merchandise, the court said, at 147 So.2d 576: In order to establish to what extent an insurer is liable where “actual cash value” is the yardstick used to determine damages, it is necessary to determine what criteria is to be used to define this phrase. In New York Central Mutual Fire I…
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. Barnard Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1925)
- State v. Brittain, 103 So. 825 (La. 1925)
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1951)