LOUIS JOVANOVICH, APPELLANT,
v.
AERO-TECH, INC., A DELAWARE 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.
Appellant sought a declaratory decree regarding rights under a contract for the purchase and sale of an airplane and parts, claiming the defendant defaulted. The trial court found that the appellant instead defaulted and awarded the defendant the $20,000 deposit plus attorney's fees, a judgment affirmed on appeal.
The trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record. The judgment for defendant-counterclaimant is affirmed because no reversible error was demonstrated.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact in a non-jury case are presumed correct on appeal and will only be reversed if unsupported by substantial, competent evidence.
[2] A party's default under a contract may entitle the non-defaulting party to retain a deposit made pursuant to the contract.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Findings of fact made by a trial judge in a non-jury case not only arrive in this court with a presumption as to their correctness but they will be reversed only upon a holding of the appellate court that the findings are without substantial, competent evidence to support them.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court findings of fact in bench trials
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and appellee entered into a written contract for the purchase and sale of an airplane and parts for $80,000. Appellant paid a $20,000 deposi…
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 Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was plaintiff and appellee was defendant and counterclaimant in an action seeking declaratory decree as to his rights under a written contract entered into by the plaintiff and defendant for the purchase and sale of an airplane and certain airplane parts for a total price of $80,000.00. The contract provided for the payment of a deposit of $20,000.00 which was made by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was further provided that in the event of a default by the plaintiff the defendant would be entitled to retain the $20,000.00 deposit and that the plaintiff would be liable for attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the parties.
The issues raised by the complaint, answer and counterclaim were whether the plaintiff or defendant defaulted under the terms of the contract and who was entitled to the deposit of $20,000.00.
The trial court, after hearing the testimony of the parties and their witnesses, and considering all the evidence, found that the plaintiff has defaulted under the terms of the contract; that the defendant had sustained at least $34,900.00 in damages; that the defendant was entitled to the $20,000.00 deposit and was indebted to defendant in the sum of $1,000.00 for the services of its attorneys.
The plaintiff’s appeal is from the final judgment entered by the court in accord with those findings.
The sole point on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence before the trial court to support the judgment for the defendant-counterclaimant.
Findings of fact made by a trial judge in a non-jury case not only arrive in this court with a presumption as to their correctness but they will be reversed only upon a holding of the appellate court that the findings are without substantial, competent evidence to support them. City of Miami Beach v. Fein, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 258; Benedict v. Dade County Realty, Inc., Fla.App. 1973, 274 So.2d 553.
We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the above principles and have concluded that the record shows substantial competent evidence to support the trial judge’s findings and judgment. No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dukes v. Allie N. Dukes, 346 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ng, a judgment of the Trial Court comes to the Appellate Court clothed with the presumption of correctness and the appellants have the burden of showing error. Phipps v. Sheffman, Fla.App., 211 So. 2d 598 and Jovanovich v. Aeor-Tec., Inc., Fla.App., 277 So. 2d 555. As in the cited cases the presumption is slight where the trial Judge used the same tools as the Appellate Court uses; that is sworn transcribed testimony. The Appellate Court and the Trial Court are “on a par” with each other because each have use…
-
BOB Restina Imports, Inc. v. Glen Covey & Assocs., Inc., 334 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Jovanovich v. Aero-Tech, Inc., Fla.App. 1973, 277 So. 2d 555; Famco Electric, Inc. v. Hernandez, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 755.…
-
Green's Pool Serv., Inc. v. MacINTYRE, 342 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See First Atlantic National Bank v. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1955); Jovanovich v. Aero-Tech, Inc., 277 So. 2d 555 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Est. of Joseph Dunbar Wight v. First Nat'l Bank IN ST. Petersburg, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Benedict v. Dade Cnty. Realty, Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)