BISCAYNE MANUFACTURING CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDAV CORP., 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.
Biscayne Manufacturing, as lessee, appealed a trial court judgment declaring an option-to-purchase provision in a commercial lease agreement null and void. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's factual determinations regarding the validity of the option clause.
The trial court's judgment declaring the option provision null and void is affirmed. The appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's factual determinations, as the trial judge's findings in a non-jury case are entitled to the same presumption of correctness afforded a jury verdict, and the appellant failed to demonstrate clear error.
[1] A cross-claim seeking equitable relief may be dismissed if the claimant has an adequate remedy at law.
[2] Appellate courts presume the correctness of trial court judgments and orders, placing the burden of demonstrating error on the appealing party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a trial judge is the finder of fact when a case is heard without a jury and that his findings on appeal are clothed with the same presumption of correctness afforded a jury verdict”
Establishes the standard of review for bench trial decisions and the presumption of correctness afforded to trial court findings of fact
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1973, Biscayne Manufacturing entered into a lease agreement with Sandav Corp. as lessor. The lease contained a provision granting Biscayne…
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 Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final judgment of the trial court holding an option provision of a lease agreement to be null and void.
In December 1973, appellant as lessee entered into a lease agreement with appel-lee as lessor. The agreement contained a provision giving appellant the option to purchase part of the demised property from appellee. Upon appellant’s attempt to exercise the option, it was repudiated by appellee.
Appellee then filed a complaint seeking, among other things, to have the option provision in the lease agreement declared invalid. On December 13, 1975, the trial court, non-jury, entered a final judgment in favor of appellee declaring that the option provision was null and void, but that the other provisions of the lease agreement were viable and in full force and effect. From the judgment, appellant brings this appeal.
Appellant’s basic contention is that the record on appeal does not support the trial court’s determination that the option provision was invalid. Appellee contends that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the judgment and, therefore, it should not be reversed.
Appellant, in its reply brief, agrees with appellee and states that a trial judge is the finder of fact when a case is heard without a jury and that his findings on appeal are clothed with the same presumption of correctness afforded a jury verdict. Also, appellant states it has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is clearly erroneous in order to obtain a reversal. We agree with both of these statements of principles of law. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 380; Paul’s Drugs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 203; and Dade County v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 198.
However, after a consideration of the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of these controlling principles of law, we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Antonelli v. Neumann, 537 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…r of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Tibbs, 397 So. 2d at 1123; see, e.g., Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc’y v. Adamides, 334 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Biscayne Mfg. Corp. v. Sandav Corp., 323 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We apply that principle to the case before us. The four prerequisites for proving a usurious transaction are: 1) an express or implied loan; 2) an understanding between the parties that the money must be repaid; 3) an agreement…
-
Despres v. State, 427 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…, resolved conflicting testimony on the issue of whether Despres asked his attorney to appeal. His findings are binding on us. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society v. Adamides, 334 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Biscayne Manufacturing Corp. v. Sandav Corp., 323 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). [*259] For the reasons stated herein, Despres’s petition for habeas corpus to obtain a belated appeal is DENIED. ORFINGER, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, J., concur. . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. . Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 2…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Crawford, 365 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ding was supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, even though we might have reached a different conclusion based on the facts below, the trial court’s finding must be affirmed. See, e. g., Biscayne Manufacturing Corp. v. Sandav Corp., 323 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, because appellant, under the facts of this case, had no right to cancel the policy in question, the final declaratory judgment entered by the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. v. Pepper, 168 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Paul's Drugs, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 175 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)