ANN MASON AND NORMA L. BROWN, D/B/A THE ODDS AND ENDS EXECUTIVE RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD MARTINO, 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 trial court has jurisdiction to alter a final judgment after granting a rehearing, and appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for the trial court's when sufficient evidence supports the judgment.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and initially lost, but the trial court granted a rehearing and then entered judgment for the plaintiff. The def…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought by Richard Mar-tino seeking damages for the breach of a written contract between the parties. The case was tried before the court without a jury and, on July 15,1975, the court entered a final judgment for the defendants. On July 22, 1975, the plaintiff served a motion for rehearing and the court granted the rehearing. The parties stipulated that no further evidence would be tendered and re-argued the case before the court. Thereafter, the trial judge entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for damages in the amount of $14,000.
Defendant’s first point urges the application of RCP 1.530(f) because of the alleged error of the trial court in not setting forth its reasons for granting a petition for rehearing. The rule is not applicable. In this instance, the trial judge heard only the re-argument of the legal points involved. The trial judge has jurisdiction to alter or amend a final judgment upon the granting of a timely motion for rehearing or reconsideration. See State ex rel. Owens v. Pearson, Fla.1963, 156 So. 2d 4.
Appellant’s remaining points are directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of liability and damages. The record reveals that there is conflicting evidence on almost every point involved. An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment entered. See Lubrano v. Macauley, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 911.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirkham v. Kirkham, 385 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…should review and determine the motion. Epperson v. Epperson, 101 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1958). Here, even though the circuit court assigned Judge Walker to another division, his jurisdiction to hear a motion for rehearing continued. See Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Under these circumstances Judge Walker should have heard the motion. Balfe v. Gulf Oil Co., 279 So. 2d 94 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, we vacate the order denying rehearing and remand to the trial court for further proceeding…
-
Airborne Freight Corp. v. Fleming Int'l Airways, Inc., 423 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ween $750 and the actual costs) to be paid upon its completion, that testimony, even if inconsistent with other conduct of Fleming International, and even if contradicted, was sufficient to permit the trial judge to find as he did. Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). While we might not have made the same finding were we the trier of fact, we cannot substitute our judgment for his. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Atkins v. Keller, 400 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). As to the other…
-
State v. Azqueriz, 485 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…n re Forfeiture of 1974 Ford Pickup Truck, 462 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); In re Forfeiture of a Cessna 421 Aircraft, 450 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wanicka v. One (1) 1979 Ford Bronco, 432 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Elmore v. Palmer First National Bank and Trust Co. of Sarasota, 221 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Therefore, the amended final judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . The physical evidence before the trial court showed tha…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eugene W. Owens v. Honorable Tillman Pearson, 156 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1963)
- Lubrano v. MacAuley, 125 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)