Clover Interior Systems, Inc. v. General Development Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1278,77-1278 |
| Citation | 357 So.2d 459 |
| Parties | CLOVER INTERIOR SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Foreign Corporation, and John Gossett Construction Co., Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John J. Dulmer, Jr., of Snyder & Dulmer, Venice, for appellant.
William M. Hereford and Wayne C. Hall, of Strode, Hereford & Taylor, Sarasota, for appellee General Development Corp.
Appellant/plaintiff Clover Interior Systems, Inc. (Clover) seeks review of a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict entered in favor of appellee/defendant General Development Corp. (General).
Appellant, a custom cabinet subcontractor, had contracted in the spring of 1974 with appellee/defendant John Gossett Construction Co. (Gossett), a general contractor, to manufacture and install custom kitchen cabinets in houses being constructed for General, a large developer of single-family houses. Gossett failed to pay Clover for labor performed and materials furnished during the months of July, August, and September, 1974, and Clover refused to continue work in mid-September. Clover alleged that Gossett owed it approximately $42,000 at that time for work it had completed. On September 21 Walter Puzio, director of operations for General, met with Joseph DeFalco, president of Clover, and paid him the sum of $14,493.97 for pre-September 21 work. General subsequently made two additional payments to Clover for pre-September 21 labor and materials. General refused Clover's demand for payment of the balance in the sum of $19,901.37.
At the conclusion of appellant's case General moved for a directed verdict. The motion was granted. The trial court found, among other things, that there was an oral agreement made on September 21, 1974 between Clover and General for payment of the prior existing debt of Gossett and that the promise was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Florida Statutes (1973).
On reviewing a directed verdict the appellate court is required to observe the well settled rule that a motion for directed verdict should be cautiously granted and that in considering such a motion all inferences of fact should be considered most strictly in favor of the nonmoving party. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 302 (1973). The single issue for our determination is whether there was competent, sufficient evidence introduced by appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone
...the findings that LPHC and Tobler defrauded and breached a fiduciary duty owed to her. See Clover Interior Systems, Inc. v. General Development Corp., 357 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). We are unable to distill that quality of evidence permitting a finding that the behavior of LPHC and ......
-
State, Dept. of Transp. v. Young, 88-768
...to the nonmoving party. Charlotte Asphalt, Inc. v. Cape Cave Corp., 406 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Clover Interior Systems, Inc. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 357 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). This court may affirm the directed verdict only if, as matter of law, no proper view of the evidence cou......
-
Consolidated Capital Corp. v. Chernoff, 83-1416
...a direct, not a collateral, obligation. See Sanders v. Hodges, 109 Fla. 391, 147 So. 571 (1933); Clover Interior Systems, Inc. v. General Development Corp., 357 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Troup Brothers, Inc. v. State of Florida, 135 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA The amount of the judgment was ......
-
Riba v. Pila
...husband, and, therefore, is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. § 725.01, Fla.Stat. (1985). See Clover Interior Sys., Inc. v. General Dev. Corp., 357 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Juliana, Inc. v. Salzman, 181 So.2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). It is undisputed that the appellant's alleged ......
-
Florida construction liens: representing the residential owner.
...for the work. (28) Moore v. Chapman, 351 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). (29) Clover Interior System v. General Development Company, 357 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (30) For a factually intensive case in which a bankruptcy court found no privity between the owner and a cabinet company (an......