Manufacturers Nat. Bank of Hialeah v. Canmont Intern., Inc., 75--107

• Decision Date: 18 November 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75--107,75--107
• Citation: 322 So.2d 565
• Parties: MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF HIALEAH, a national banking corporation, Appellant, v. CANMONT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 565

322 So.2d 565

MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF HIALEAH, a national banking corporation, Appellant, v. CANMONT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 75--107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 18, 1975.

Smathers & Thompson and Shepherd D. Johnston, Miami, for appellant.

Richard H. W. Maloy and Richard J. Burton, Coral Gables, Kevin A. Anderson, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final judgment of the circuit court granting specific performance of a contract to appellee, plaintiff below.

In July, 1968, appellant purchased a parcel of land from appellee. The property was approximately one-half acre and was located at the southwest corner of the Flamingo Shopping Plaza in Hialeah, Florida. Appellant and appellee also entered into an agreement dated July 24, 1975, relating to a sign which was on the purchased property. Paragraph four of this agreement provided that appellee would convey the sign to appellant which agreed to maintain it and to provide adequate illuminated space on the sign to identify Flamingo Plaza Shopping Center. This part of the agreement contained no terms as to duration.

As contemplated by the agreement, appellant proceeded with the construction of a bank building on the property. During construction, it became necessary to take the sign down because it was in the way of construction. Thereafter, the parties were unable to agree on a replacement sign and appellee filed a complaint, as amended, seeking specific performance and money damages.

On December 19, 1974, the trial court entered a final judgment which ordered appellant to re-erect an identical sign in the exact location where it was previously located prior to its removal and to specifically comply with the July 24, 1968 agreement by maintaining the sign and providing adequate illuminated space on the sign identifying the Flamingo Plaza Shopping Center. From this judgment, appellant brings its appeal.

Appellant's basic contentions on appeal are that the trial court erred in entering its judgment because the disagreement over the sign was settled by a written compromise and settlement between the parties and because the remedy of specific performance was improperly granted.

Generally, an appellate court is limited in its review to the correction of errors of law and is not authorized to review questions of fact. While the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law may be presented to the appellate court, its duty in this regard ceases when it has determined that there is some substantial evidence to support the judgment. Vincent v. Lawson, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 162; and 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, §§ 340--344, and § 347 with ...