BRIAN J. WAGNER AND ANN T. WAGNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAVERNE ZANGHI, 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 affirmed a judgment awarding Zanghi damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, obstruction of riparian rights, and nuisance against the Wagners, despite the judgment's ambiguity regarding whether damages and costs were cumulative or duplicative.
A judgment containing multiple separate awards for different causes of action may be affirmed even when it does not clarify whether damages and costs are cumulative or duplicative, and the trial court may conduct a subsequent hearing to determine the final amount due.
[1] A trial court judgment containing multiple separate awards for different causes of action need not clarify whether damages and costs are cumulative or duplicative when th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrian and Ann Wagner were found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, obstruction of riparian rights, and nuisance in favor of Laverne Zanghi. The …
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 Duplicative Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brian and Ann Wagner appeal from an amended final judgment awarding damages to Laverne Zanghi for fraudulent misrepresentation, obstruction of riparian rights, and nuisance. The amended final judgment, although a single judgment, contains three separate awards. It awards $10,000 in damages plus costs of $767.71 on the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Mrs. Wagner. It then awards $20,000 in damages plus costs of $767.71 on the claim of obstruction of riparian rights against Mr. & Mrs. Wagner, and awards $20,000 in damages plus costs of $767.71 again on the claim of nuisance. The trial court did not sum the damages and costs and did not indicate whether the damages or cost amounts are cumulative or duplicative. This is consistent with the unobjected-to jury instructions and verdict form, which did not require the jury to avoid an award of duplicative damages. Neither party objected to the form of this unusual judgment in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm, recognizing that the trial court may need to conduct an additional hearing in order to determine the amount that the Wagners are required to pay to obtain a satisfaction of this judgment.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., and LEVENS, WILLIAM P., Associate Judge, Concur.