Forte v. Tripp and Skrip, Nos. 75--1693

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBefore BARKDULL; PER CURIAM; HENDRY
Citation339 So.2d 698
PartiesMichael FORTE and Oak Grove Gardens, Inc., etc., Appellants, v. TRIPP & SKRIP et al., Appellees.
Decision Date23 November 1976
Docket NumberNos. 75--1693,75--1964

Page 698

339 So.2d 698
Michael FORTE and Oak Grove Gardens, Inc., etc., Appellants,
v.
TRIPP & SKRIP et al., Appellees.
Nos. 75--1693, 75--1964.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 23, 1976.

Page 699

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.

PER CURIAM.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. v. Landers, No. 81-1362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 29, 1982
    ...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 12 Florida Shade Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Jno. H. Swisher & Son, Inc., 369 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Six L's Packing Co. ......
  • Coudry v. City of Titusville, No. 82-886
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 6, 1983
    ...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 177 ......
  • Plyser v. Hados, No. 79-2267
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1980
    ...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 Accordingly, the order of summary judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this ......
  • Dober v. Worrell, No. 59608
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 23, 1981
    ...court noted that "(t)here is considerable confusion among the authorities." We find conflict. See Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We hold that failure to raise an affirmative defense before a trial court considering a motion for summary judgment preclu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Dependable Ins. Co., Inc. v. Landers, No. 81-1362
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 29, 1982
    ...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 12 Florida Shade Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Jno. H. Swisher & Son, Inc., 369 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Six L's Packing Co. ......
  • Coudry v. City of Titusville, No. 82-886
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 6, 1983
    ...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 177 ......
  • Plyser v. Hados, No. 79-2267
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1980
    ...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 Accordingly, the order of summary judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this ......
  • Dober v. Worrell, No. 59608
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 23, 1981
    ...court noted that "(t)here is considerable confusion among the authorities." We find conflict. See Forte v. Tripp & Skrip, 339 So.2d 698 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). We hold that failure to raise an affirmative defense before a trial court considering a motion for summary judgment preclu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT