Shuman v. Winnick
| Decision Date | 08 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-0995,98-0995 |
| Citation | 725 So.2d 1199 |
| Parties | Bernard L. SHUMAN, Appellant, v. Annette WINNICK, Dana Winnick, Steven Winnick, et al., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William A. Post, Dunnellon, for Appellant.
Joryn Jenkins of Joryn Jenkins, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
Bernard Shuman filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the trial court. The complaint alleged that, after Mr. Shuman entered into a contract to purchase real estate from Annette, Steven, Todd, and Dana Winnick (the Winnicks), a dispute arose regarding the description of the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the Winnicks and Mr. Shuman appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in ruling against him. We disagree and affirm.
Mr. Shuman leased Filthy McNasty's Bar and a nearby residence from the Winnicks. When he expressed an interest to purchase the property, the Winnicks submitted a proposed contract to Mr. Shuman offering to sell the property to him for $185,000. A handdrawn map was attached to the proposed contract depicting where Filthy McNasty's Bar and the nearby residence are located, as well as other nearby residential lots in a subdivision also owned by the Winnicks. However, the map was not incorporated into the proposed contract and the contract did not contain a legal description of the property.
After reviewing the proposed contract, Mr. Shuman's wife asked the Winnicks to add to the contract the street addresses of the bar and the nearby residences. The addresses "2420 and 2450 South Suncoast Boulevard, Homasassa, FL 34448" were added to the contract under the heading "Description." The parties then executed the contract and a closing date was set.
Prior to closing, a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount of property to be transferred under the terms of the contract. The title insurance commitment described the real property to be conveyed as including only the bar and the nearby residence. Mr. Shuman took the position that the contract also included several nearby residential lots. The contract never closed because of this dispute, and Mr. Shuman sued the Winnicks alleging he was in doubt about his rights under the contract.
After conducting a nonjury trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Shuman finding that the parties' contract included the sale of the nearby residential lots. In its final judgment, the court stated that the contract price of $185,000 was "a reasonable fair market value ... for the house, the bar and the various lots."
Upon receipt of the final judgment, the Winnicks timely filed a motion for rehearing. The motion requested, among other things, that the trial court take additional evidence because the court had incorrectly concluded that the subdivision lots were contiguous to the bar, and had made errors with regard to the valuation of the property. Mr. Shuman objected to the motion; however, the trial court overruled the objection. The Winnicks then submitted additional evidence regarding valuation. Upon reconsideration, the trial court ruled in favor of the Winnicks, finding that it was the intention of the Winnicks to convey only the house and bar located at 2420 and 2450 South Suncoast Boulevard, and "the fair market value of the house, bar and various lots far exceeds the purchase price set forth in the contract and supports the testimony of Steven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appellate standards of review.
...only where there has been an abuse of that discretion. See Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 15 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1943); Shuman v. Winnick, 725 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Musselwhite v. Charboneau, 709 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA Of course, direct appellate review of an order denying a motion for......