ANTHONY F. BALZEBRE ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
2600 DOUGLAS, 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 court held that punitive damages are allowable in a tort counterclaim, and that the discovery ruling was not erroneous.
Counterdefendants appealed an order denying their motion to strike an amended counterclaim and objections to interrogatories. The original suit was in…
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 Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This interlocutory appeal is brought by the counterdefendants from an order which denied their motion to strike or dismiss the amended counterclaim of the counterplain-tiff-appellee and denied objections to interrogatories which had been interposed by the appellee. This cause has had several previous appearances in this court. See Balzebre v. Pearson, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 427; Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 445; Balzebre v. Pearson, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 429. Appellants have presented two points on appeal corresponding to the two aspects of the order mentioned above. We hold that neither point presents prejudicial error. In appellants’ argument under the first point, it is claimed that punitive damages are not allowable in this suit because this suit was one formerly cognizable in equity. It is clear that while the suit was originally brought by the appellants as an equity suit, the appellee’s counterclaim is for an alleged malicious tort and as such punitive damages are allowable. We do not reach the sufficiency of the allegations as to punitive damages since appellants assign as error only the denial of the general motion to dismiss or strike the entire counterclaim. See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Sellers, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 251.
We find no error upon the discovery ruling. See Lewis v. Moody, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 260.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Balzebre v. 2660 Douglas, Inc., 294 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 32.…
-
Wasman v. Goshgarian, 537 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…bout the reasons for his transfer of Wasman’s funds "totally unbelievable." . Although the original suit was based in equity, the cross-claim was for a common law tort: fraud. Punitive damages are thus available. See Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., 291 So. 2d 32 (Fla.3d DCA 1974) (where suit originally brought in equity, counterclaim for malicious tort allows consideration of award of punitive damages).…
Authorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Lorna Stewart Sellers and John W. Sellers, 161 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Lewis v. Moody, 195 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., 273 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Irving v. State, 273 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Balzebre v. Kaye Pearson, 273 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Balzebre v. Kaye A. Pearson, 273 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Balaban v. State, 273 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)