EDWARD M. STRAWGATE AND GERALD M. HIGIER, PETITIONERS,
v.
DOROTHEA CHASE TURNER, RESPONDENT
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.
In this real estate dispute, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a District Court of Appeal decision and reinstated a trial court judgment that granted rescission of a property purchase agreement based on misrepresentation or mutual mistake. The case turns on whether the property's 500 feet of "frontage" on U.S. Highway 1 referred to actual highway abutment or frontage despite a state right-of-way separating the property from the pavement.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence and properly granted. The District Court of Appeal erred by substituting its judgment for that of the trial court, and the District Court's decision reversing the trial court was improper.
[1] Findings of fact by a trial judge are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.
[2] Trial court findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion.
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 by a trial judge are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court findings, requiring deference to the trial judge's factual determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrawgate and Higier agreed to purchase property from Turner for development as a shopping center. The contract described the property as having 500 f…
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
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of ceriorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 307 So. 2d 902, which reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. We have jurisdiction because of conflict with Benedict v. Dade County Realty Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla.App.3rd 1973). Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioners, as purchasers, and respondent, as seller, entered a contract for the sale of real property, which was to be developed as a shopping center by petitioners. The property was described by the sale agreement as consisting of 500 feet of “frontage” on U.S. Highway No. 1. • A down payment was deposited in escrow pursuant to the agreement.
Following the execution of the sale agreement, a survey revealed that the property was separated from the pavement of U.S. Highway No. 1 by a state right-of-way 175 feet wide, which ran the length of the property. Because they believed the word “frontage” in the contract meant that the property abutted the pavement of the highway, petitioners requested the escrow agent to return their down payment. Rather than honor the request, the escrow agent brought an action before a court without jury, in which petitioners and respondent were interpleaded as defendants. Petitioners cross-claimed that respondent misrepresented the boundaries of the property, or, in the alternative, that a mutual mistake existed between the parties requiring rescission of the contract.
. At trial, testimony of petitioners and expert witnesses, as well as evidence of physical features of the subject property, supported petitioners’ alternative theories of recovery. The trial judge granted judgment for petitioners. Respondent appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. The opinion rendered by the District Court reviewed the evidence and reversed with instructions to enter judgment in favor of respondent.
Findings of fact by a trial judge are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Read v. Frizzell, 60 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1952). Findings by trial court will not be disturbed unless there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion. Chakford v. Strum, 87 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1956).
Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court had ample evidence before it as a basis for its judgment. In reaching a contrary decision the District Court improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court’s.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in this cause is quashed with directions to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J. and ROBERTS, ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. Rehearing dénied; OVERTON,. C. J., BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., and ROBERTS, Ret. J., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (41 total)
-
Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976), and Boat Town U.S.A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick Corp., 364 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).…
-
Marsh v. Laurel J. Ising Marsh, 419 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982)…l court. Mirras v. Mirras, 202 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Sharp v. Sharp, 185 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Findings of fact by a trial court are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976). When, as here, the grantor’s intent is to be determined from the conflicting testimony of the parties, it is the responsibility of the trial court to evaluate the weight and credibility of that testimony and to arrive at a determination…
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 622 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…trial court’s judgment which awarded rehabilitative rather than permanent alimony to 36-year-old wife of 12-year marriage and ordered sale of marital home even though younger child would not reach age of majority for 14 years); Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976). Different triers of fact (whether a jury or a judge) reach different results based upon the particular facts presented in each individual cast Each case turns on facts peculiar to it and the weight to be given these facts by the trier of…
Previewing 3 of 41 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Cont'l Inv., Inc. v. Borofsky, 87 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1956)
- Benedict v. Dade Cnty. Realty, Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Dorothea Chase Turner v. Strawgate, 307 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)