MAISON GRANDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DORTEN, INC., A FLORIDA CORP., ROBERT L. SIEGEL, ETC., APPELLEES; DORTEN, INC., A FLORIDA CORP., ROBERT L. SIEGEL, ETC., APPELLANTS, V. MAISON GRANDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., 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 the trial court's final judgment and order were correct and should be affirmed.
The case involves consolidated appeals from a final judgment and an order concerning interest and attorney's fees. The parties appealed these decision…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
These consolidated appeals are brought from a final judgment dated February 17, 1977, and an order allowing interest and denying attorney’s fees dated June 15,1977, entered by the trial court. Both the final judgment and the order appealed are affirmed.
It is axiomatic that an order or judgment of the trial court is generally presumed to be correct. A corollary to the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s decision is, of course, the rule as to the burden of showing error. The one who asserts error has the burden of showing it. Such a burden has been spoken of as a duty. It can be met only by making reversible error clearly, definitely, and fully appear. Failure to meet the burden impels the conclusion that there is no error in the record, and that the order or judgment must be affirmed.
In the light of these and the other controlling principles of law, we have carefully reviewed the entire record, studied the briefs of the parties, and listened to the oral arguments of counsel. This consideration has led us to the conclusion that the parties have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating any error. Accordingly, the final judgment and order appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tucker Constr. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…s to the restaurant are not covered by this “completed operations” liability policy and the trial court correctly entered the summary judgment which is AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. .See, e.g., Prieto v. Continental Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (where building collapsed after completion, damages to third parties were not covered by contractor’s premises-operations liability coverage); Sandpiper Constr. Co. Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guar. Co., 348 So. 2d 379 (Fla…
-
Greenway Vill. S. Condo. Ass'ns I, II, III v. Roach, 397 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…rt is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith. LETTS, C. J., and STONE, BARRY, J., Associate Judge, concur. . The Sandpiper interpretation was followed in Prieto v. Continental Insurance Co., 358 So. 2d 851 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).…
-
Maison Grande Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dorten, Inc., 580 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…of-living adjustment. Mai-son Grande counterclaimed, alleging that the escalation clause was unconscionable. The question of unconscionability was tried before a [*861] jury which found for Dorten. This court affirmed. Maison Grande v. Dorten, Inc., 358 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). . The only circumstance under which the ban may be applied retroactively is when the lessor has expressly agreed to be bound by future changes in the Condominium Act. Angora Enters., Inc. v. Cole, 439 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1983), cert…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence