VICTOR LERNER
v.
INO HALEGUA
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.
Appellants Victor Lerner and others appealed a final judgment following a jury verdict and accounting bench trial in a dispute with Ino Halegua and others. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's denial of additur or new trial and upholding the accounting award.
The court affirmed the judgment in all respects, finding the jury verdict was supported by evidence and bore a reasonable relation to proven damages, and the accounting award was proper where equitable issues remained after the jury verdict.
[1] A jury verdict carrying a presumption of regularity will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by evidence and the damage award bears a reasonable relation to the…
[2] Where unrelated equitable issues remain following a jury verdict, a trial court may conduct a separate bench trial on those equitable claims, including actions for accoun…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellees, and the trial court subsequently conducted a bench trial on accounting issues. The appellants challen…
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 Equitable Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 5, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1151 Lower Tribunal No. 10-30306 ________________ Victor Lerner, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Ino Halegua, et al., Appellees.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge. Charlip Law Group, L.C., and David H. Charlip, for appellants. Jones & Adams, P.A., and Matthew L. Jones, and Daniel Haydar, Joel S. Perwin, P.A., and Joel S. Perwin, for appellees. Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J.
Appellants challenge a final judgment executed following the rendition of a jury verdict and an accounting bench trial. Observing that “[a] verdict is clothed with a presumption of regularity and is not to be disturbed if supported by the evidence,” Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 603 So. 2d 109, 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the trial court is not permitted to “sit as a seventh juror with veto power,” Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1970), and here, the amount awarded by the jury bore “a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered” and was “such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons,” § 768.74(5)(d),(e), Fla. Stat. (2021), we find no error in the denial of additur or new trial. Further, we affirm the accounting award in all respects. See Spring v. Ronel Refin., Inc., 421 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“If, after the jury verdict, there are unrelated equitable issues remaining, the trial court may then consider those claims.”), disapproved of on other grounds by Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998); Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 778 So. 2d 495, 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Where a fiduciary or trust relationship exists, an action for an accounting is considered equitable in nature without regard to other considerations.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Spring v. Ronel Ref., Inc., 421 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Sweet Paper Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 603 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Nasir M. Ashemimry v. Sheik Ahmed Abdul Rahman Saleh BA Nafa, 778 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)