Dysart v. Hunt
| Citation | 383 So.2d 259 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1932,79-1932 |
| Parties | Sally DYSART, Appellant, v. Robert HUNT, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, Tutan, O'Hara & McCoy and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.
The plaintiff below, Sally Dysart, who prevailed before a jury in a replevin action, challenges the rulings of the trial court in striking and refusing to enter judgment upon that portion of the verdict which awarded her $75,000 in money damages. 1 We affirm on the basis of our agreement with the trial judge that the claim for money damages was neither raised in the pleadings nor tried by the express or implied consent of the parties.
The complaint in this case, which was never amended, alleged and claimed only the right to the possession of the personal property in question. Unlike even the form replevin complaint, Form 1.937, Fla.R.Civ.P., it specifically did not contain a demand for damages for the detention of the property. Indeed, the first and only specific reference to a request for money damages appeared in the plaintiff's requested jury instructions on the subject, which were submitted at the conclusion of the trial and to which defense counsel immediately objected. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff to support the damages charge and verdict was fully consistent with and pertinent to the plaintiff's position on the issue which was framed by the pleadings and which was actually being tried: the right to the possession of the property in dispute. There is thus no basis for finding that the defendant's failure to object to that evidence constituted an express or implied consent to try the unpled and quite different damage question, so as to invoke the provisions of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b). Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1167 (1976); Triax, Inc. v. City of Treasure Island, 208 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Tucker v. Daugherty, 122 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 125 So.2d 878 (1960); Edwards v. Young, 107 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); compare Batista v. Walter & Bernstein, P.A., 378 So.2d 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The case is therefore controlled by the familiar principle expressed in Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla. 1957):
. . . that a judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OneWest Bank, FSB v. Palmero
...properly considered by the trial court, and judgment should not have been entered below for these reasons, see e.g., Dysart v. Hunt, 383 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), this conclusion does not end our judicial labor.We must still consider the dispositive issue of whether the trial court......
-
Perlman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc.
...did not claim that relief against Prudential.2 But see Gutierrez v. L. Plumbing, Inc., 516 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dysart v. Hunt, 383 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980); Freeman v. Rubin, 318 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Ditlow v. Kaplan, 181 So.2d......
-
Wagner v. Nottingham Associates, 84-105
...parties during the hearing on the pleadings as made, a decree adjudicating such issue is, at least, voidable on appeal. Dysart v. Hunt, 383 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980) (quoting from Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla.1957), the court held tha......
-
Miami Electronics Center, Inc. v. Saporta
...486 So.2d 596 (Fla.1986); Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, Fla., 418 So.2d 1251, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Dysart v. Hunt, 383 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1980); Jorge v. Rosen, 208 So.2d 644, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). In any event, the non-compete cov......