DORY AUERBACH REALTY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AL EVANS AND EDITH EVANS, HIDDEN PINES, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CLARA AUERBACH, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD C. WASER AND LILLIAN WASER, APPELLEES
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.
Plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their misrepresentation claim against sellers of a mobile home park, alleging the sellers falsely represented that certain lots were connected to a sewage treatment plant when they were actually on septic tanks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendants, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings that plaintiffs were not induced by any misrepresentations.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial judge's factual findings that plaintiffs had not been induced by misrepresentations and that defendants were entitled to judgment for the escrowed sum plus additional amounts owed.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact will be affirmed on appeal if supported by substantial competent evidence.
[2] A party alleging misrepresentation must prove they were induced into the purchase by the alleged misrepresentations.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“There is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the trial judge and, therefore, we cannot and shall not reverse the judgment of the trial court.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review and the court's deference to trial court factual findings supported by substantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Wasers owned Sea Breeze Trailer Park with 101 usable lots; 29 were connected to an on-site sewage treatment plant while 16 Pelican Point lots used…
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 Caveat Emptor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal an adverse final judgment in this action for damages for alleged misrepresentation in their purchase of a mobile home park.
Defendant-appellees, Edward and Lillian Waser, owned the Sea Breeze Trailer Park which consisted of 101 usable lots, 29 of which were connected to a sewage treatment plant on the property. However, 16 of the 101 lots known as Pelican Point were connected to septic tanks. The Wasers listed the property for sale with Dory Auer-bach Realty Company and Mr. Waser showed Mr. Auerbach, as broker, the property and gave him a plot plan which allegedly demonstrated that the 16 Pelican Point lots were connected to the sewage treatment plant. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, Dory Auerbach Realty, Al and Edith Evans, Hidden Pines, Inc. and Clara Auer-bach executed a contract for the purchase of the park. An addendum to the contract provided that the Wasers place $5,000 in escrow to be used for the enlargement of the sewage treatment plant, this sum to be repaid by purchasers at $100 per month. The parties consummated the deal and thereafter plaintiff-purchasers discovered that the Pelican Point lots were on septic tanks and not connected to the treatment plant. Plaintiffs then filed the instant suit for the false and misleading representations with respect to the sewer line connections to these lots allegedly made by Waser orally and as shown in the plot plan given to Mr. Auerbach. The Wasers answered and counterclaimed for repayment of the $5,000 es-crowed for the enlargement of the sewage treatment plant because of plaintiffs failure to make the monthly payments. The Wasers also counterclaimed for $449.18 wrongfully credited to plaintiffs at the time of closing. The cause proceeded to a nonju-ry trial at which the Wasers denied making any representations with respect to the sewer line connections and further alleged that the subject plot plan was obviously out of date, incomplete and was used only for the purpose of locating the lots and who was occupying the lots at the time. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge found that plaintiffs had not been induced into the purchase of the park by the misrepresentations of the Wasers and then further found for the Wasers for $5,449. We affirm.
After a consideration of the records and briefs in this case, we find that there were conflicts in the. evidence which were resolved by the judge as trier of the facts as well as the law. There is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the trial judge and, therefore, we cannot and shall not reverse the judgment of the trial court. See Morrison v. Smith, 257 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); City of Miami Beach v. Fein, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Jackson v. Granger Lumber Company, Inc., 275 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenny v. Ambulatory Ctr. OF Miami, 400 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ts judgment for that of the trial court by re-evaluating the evidence. Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1978); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell’s City, Inc., 265 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1972); Dory Auerbach Realty Co. v. Waser, 359 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The trial court’s findings as set forth in the final judgment are: “1. That this action filed by the Plaintiff is founded on employment discrimination from her employment as a nurse and her duties in termination of pregnancy pr…
-
B.F. Goodrich Co. & Kemper Reinsurance Co. v. Reeber, 426 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ent in favor of Renee and Martin Reeber in this products liability case. See Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1962); Dory Auerbach Realty Co. v. Waser, 359 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Burgin v. Merritt, 311 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 84 (Fla.1975); Gallub v. Del Vecchio, 301 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1975); Dixie-Bell Oil Co., Inc. v. Gold, 275 So.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Joseph Dunbar Wight v. First Nat'l Bank IN ST. Petersburg, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Jackson v. Granger Lumber Co., Inc., 275 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Grady B. Morrison and Edna E. Morrison v. Smith, 257 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)