JIMMIE R. RODGERS AND JIMMIE RODGERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
KAJAX REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
This case involves a consolidated declaratory judgment and common law action concerning the forfeiture of an executory contract for property rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the findings of fact and no abuse of discretion or incorrect application of law.
No, the trial judge did not err. There was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact, and no abuse of discretion or incorrect application of law was demonstrated.
“Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, or that he applied to the facts an incorrect rule of law, the judgment and decree appealed are severally affirmed.”
This quote explains the basis for the appellate court's decision to affirm the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants (plaintiffs) sought a declaratory decree to forfeit an executory contract under which they and appellees held property rights. Simultaneous…
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 Action For Money Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants were plaintiffs in a declaratory decree proceeding instituted under F.S. Chapter 87, F.S.A., seeking forfeiture of an executory contract under which appellants and appellees hold substantial property rights. Appellants were also defendants in a common law action brought by appellees to recover a money judgment for sums claimed to be due them under the contract for which forfeiture was sought in the action for declaratory relief. These suits were consolidated, tried without a jury, and disposed of in a single combined decree and judgment rendered by the trial court.
Appellants contend that the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a forfeiture by defendants of the contract in question; erred in his finding of the amount due ap-pellees under the contract; erred by awarding excessive attorney fees to appel-lees; and, erred in refusing to allow costs to appellants in either the chancery or common law action.
We have carefully examined the record on appeal and find that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of •fact as set forth in the decree appealed. Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, or that he applied to the facts an incorrect rule of law, the judgment and decree appealed are severally affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.