WASH BOWL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment, upholding the denial of a forfeiture of a substantial advance payment on equipment. The court found substantial evidence supported the trial judge's decision and that the law generally disfavors forfeitures.
Yes, the appellate court held that the final judgment was supported by substantial, competent evidence and affirmed the trial court's decision, thereby preventing the forfeiture of the advance payment.
“The final judgment arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee advanced $20,500.00 on the purchase price of certain equipment. The appellant sought to reverse a final judgment that would have resulted…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the defendant in the trial court seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in a non-jury trial.
To reverse, as urged, would cause a ■ forfeiture of some $20,500.00 advanced by the appellee on the purchase price of certain equipment. The final judgment arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge’s ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 477; Dade County etc. v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198. And, generally, both equity and the law abhor forfeitures. See: McCaskill v.. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571, 52 So. 961; Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561; Boyle v. State, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 693.
Therefore, finding the final judgment within the issues as framed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence as presented to the trier of fact, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goodman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 240 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…in order to effect its express intention rather than in a manner to constitute a forfeiture which the courts will ordinarily avoid. Nash Miami Motors v. Bandel, Fla.1959, 47 So. 2d 701; Wash Bowl, Inc. v. Miami Coin-O-Wash No. 3, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 674. Accordingly the declaratory judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment holding that the plaintiff-appellant did not voluntarily terminate his employment and that he is entitled to participate in the Employees’…
-
Wash Bowl, Inc. v. Miami Coin-O-Wash NO. 3, Inc., 188 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1966)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 184 So. 2d 674.…
-
Miller v. Blue Cross OF Fla., Inc., 199 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…rbed on appeal. See: LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So. 2d 330; Dade County, By and Through Bd. of County Com’rs v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 198; Wash Bowl, Inc. v. Miami Coin-O-Wash No. 3, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 674; Leeb v. Read, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 830. Therefore, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. CHARLES CARROLL, J., dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moran-Alleen Co. v. Brown, 98 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1929)
- McCaskill v. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1910)
- Dade Cnty. v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950)
- Davis v. Levin, 138 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Lamb v. Dade Cnty., 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hemphill v. Adolph Pesat, 98 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1929)