Forte v. Tripp and Skrip
| Decision Date | 23 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 75--1693,75--1964,s. 75--1693 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 698 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Michael FORTE and Oak Grove Gardens, Inc., etc., Appellants, v. TRIPP & SKRIP et al., Appellees. |
Storace, Hall & Hauser, Miami, for appellants.
Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn, Paige & Catlin, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.
The appellants were plaintiffs in the trial court. They brought an action for damages against the appellees as defendants, alleging a fraud and a misrepresentation as to certain applicable zoning regulations pertaining to a particular piece of property. The defendants counterclaim to recover the balance of the architectural fees due them for services performed.
Subsequent to numerous depositions and affidavits and an earlier motion for summary judgment, resulting in a favorable ruling for one of the original defendants, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the original cause of action and in favor of the architects on their counterclaim. This appeal ensued.
The appellants contend that so much of the record as they brought up here demonstrates a genuine issue of a material fact as to whether or not an actual misrepresentation was committed by the architects. The record on appeal reveals the following:
In 1971, the appellants (Forte and Oak Grove Gardens, Inc.) purchased the Pflueger Tract, based upon the alleged representation by the appellees that the County zoning had been resolved. The zoning regulation of Metropolitan Dade County as to off-street parking had been changed prior to the date of sale. As a result, the project proposed to be built on the land by the appellees had to comply with a higher off-street parking requirement. It is alleged that the appellees failed to inform the appellants of the higher off-street parking requirements. There was testimony by the appellee, Skrip, that the County had approved the project under the prior zoning requirement as opposed to the higher off-street parking requirement. In 1972, after the plans for the project were submitted for building approval, the appellee (Skrip) testified that the County would not go along with the parking requirements which, he contended, had been previously agreed upon. As a result, the appellants were required to comply with the additional parking requirements and eliminate the fourth building of the project until the parking issue could be resolved. During resolution of the problem, the County denied that it ever approved the old parking requirements on the property. Notwithstanding the appellees' representation, the problem was resolved by way of court order by obtaining a building permit. Appellants, as a result of the alleged misrepresentation, were delayed in excess of one year from completing the project and, thereupon, filed this action.
The appellees contend that there can be no reversal in this case because the entire record was not brought into this court, citing Butler v. Metropolitan Dade County, 298 So.2d 552 (Fla.3rd DCA 1974); Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So.2d 45 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975). We agree that normally a summary judgment will not be reversed when the entire record in not brought before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. v. Landers
...appellate court may and should look beyond the pleadings. Beckerman v. Greenbaum, 347 So.2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).12 Florida Shade Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Jno. H. Swisher & Son, Inc., 369 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Six L's Pack......
-
Coudry v. City of Titusville
...1977), appeal after remand 382 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Schurkman v. Stolar, 347 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Keyes Co. v. Executive Center, Inc., 311 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Watier v. REW Crane Service, Inc., 240 So.2d 1......
-
Plyser v. Hados
...Crane Service, Inc. v. Watier, 257 So.2d 249 (Fla.1971); Greenburg v. Johnston, 367 So.2d 229 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order of summary judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent w......
-
Worrell v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc.
...an amendment might be proper under the rationale of Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla.1964), and Forte v. Tripp, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and numerous similar The trial court was not presented with a formal request to amend to assert concealment as a reason for tol......