FLORIDA ANTILLES PROPERTIES, N. V., A NETHERLAND ANTILLES CORPORATION, AND YEHUDA GERTNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROSE AND ROSE, INC., 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.
Florida Antilles Properties and Yehuda Gertner, purchasers in a real estate transaction, appealed a judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to a real estate broker for tortious interference with a brokerage contract. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no reversible error where the trial court resubmitted a defective verdict form to the jury because the defendants failed to object and tacitly agreed to the procedure.
No reversible error was established. Although a procedural error occurred in resubmitting less than all verdict forms, the purchasers were estopped from demanding a new trial because they failed to object to the procedure and tacitly agreed to it when their counsel did not respond to the trial court's proposal.
[1] A trial court commits procedural error when it resubmits only a defective verdict form to the jury without resubmitting all original verdict forms.
[2] A party may be estopped from claiming reversible error based on a procedural defect if they do not object and tacitly agree to the procedure.
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“It is obviously ineffective as to these three; Breziner, Gertner and Florida Antilles because they cannot find punitive unless they find compensatory.”
Trial court's explanation for why the verdict was defective as to the purchasers under the jury instructions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReal estate brokers (Rose and Rose, Inc.) brought an action against sellers and purchasers for damages based on allegations of conspiracy and tortious…
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.
PEARSON, Judge.
The appellants were two of the defendants in an action brought by the appellee real estate brokers. The action sought damages against the sellers and the defendant purchasers in a real estate transaction. The plaintiff claimed compensatory and punitive damages against the sellers and the buyers upon an allegation that the ac tions of the defendants revealed a conspiracy and a tortious interference with plaintiff’s brokerage contract. The verdict finally recorded was against the sellers and the purchasers for both compensatory and punitive damages. This appeal is by the purchasers.
The point presented urges a procedural error in that upon the return of the first verdict form, which the trial judge found to be defective, the court returned the case to the jury without resubmitting all the original forms of verdict.1
Based upon the evidence, the trial judge properly instructed the jury. The jury was provided with four forms of verdict which accommodated the various determinations of liability and damages available under the instructions. The first verdict returned assessed punitive damages against all the defendants, but compensatory damages against only the sellers. The trial court declared this verdict ineffective as to the purchasers, as to whom the jury was instructed either to drop the punitive damages or to add compensatory damages. The tendered verdict was returned to the jury for correction. The jury then returned the form of verdict resubmitted to it, with compensatory damages inserted as to the purchasers. This appeal followed.
There is no doubt that there was a procedural error. The real question is whether appellants are now estopped to demand a new trial because they did not object and, in fact, tacitly agreed to the procedure proposed and carried out by the trial judge.
When the first verdict was handed to the judge, he called counsel to the bench and stated:
“THE COURT: It is obviously ineffective as to these three; Breziner, Gertner and Florida Antilles because they -cannot find punitive unless they find compensatory. I will so instruct them.
“I will ask them to take back the verdict and come back with what they want to do; either they can check or they can erase.
“MR. PARKS: That will explain the whole thing. I have no objection to you doing that, Your Honor.”
Counsel for the defendants did not respond but, after the jury had retired, moved “ . . . that the Court direct a verdict for the defendants, Gertner and Florida Antilles and Mr. Breziner too.” The court denied the motion.
We hold that no reversible error is established. See Brown v. Ripley, Fla.App. 1960, 119 So. 2d 712; see also Lee County Oil Co. v. Marshall, Fla.App.1957, 98 So. 2d 510.
Affirmed.
. In Stevens Markets, Inc. v. Markantonatos, Fla.1966, 189 So. 2d 624, 626, the Supreme Court held:
“No ease is cited and none is found sanctioning the resubmission of less than all the multiple verdicts in a cause.* ***The District Court erred in affirming the trial court’s resubmission of only one of three verdicts involved in this cause.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Curelli, 511 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ot otherwise present fundamental error. Dubowitz v. Century Village East, Inc., 385 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Florida Antilles Properties, N. V. v. Rose & Rose, Inc., 324 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Dade County, in turn, attacks the propriety of the trial court’s costs award of certain fees to two expert property appraisers hired by the property owners. Dade County presents no persuasive reason as to why these awards are e…
-
Carmelo Savoca and Marie Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., Inc., 346 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…g sufficient to sustain an award of $65,000 before reduction, we find no merit in this contention of plaintiffs. See Holmes v. School Board of Orange County, 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Florida Antilles Properties, N. V. v. Rose & Rose, Inc., 324 So. 2d 129 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Plaintiffs also urge as reversible error the fact that the verdict for zero dollars for Carmelo and $65,000 for Marie is inconsistent as Carmelo had a derivative claim for medical expenses while Marie’s claim was for pain and suf…
-
Leonard v. Roth, 393 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…and their explicit agreement to allow the trial court to assess attorney’s fees, coupled with the later dismissal of the action, estops appellants from asserting the error, if any, on appeal. Florida Antilles Properties, N.V. v. Rose and Rose, Inc., 324 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also American Mortgage Corporation v. Lord, 253 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 260 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1972); Martel v. Carlson, 118 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1960).…
Authorities Cited
- LEE Cnty. OIL Co., Inc. v. Marshall, 98 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Coral WAY Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Humerto Irene Picon & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 189 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1966)
- Brown v. Ripley, 119 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)