Strawgate v. Turner
| Decision Date | 30 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 47136,47136 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 1112 |
| Parties | Edward M. STRAWGATE and Gerald M. Higier, Petitioners, v. Dorothea Chase TURNER, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Gerald M. Higier, Coral Gables, for petitioners.
William H. Turner, III, Miami, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 307 So.2d 902, which reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County. We have jurisdiction because of conflict with Benedict v. Dade County Realty Inc., 274 So.2d 553 (Fla.App.3rd 1973). Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioners, as purchasers, and respondent, as seller, entered a contract for the sale of real property, which was to be developed as a shopping center by petitioners. The property was described by the sale agreement as consisting of 500 feet of 'frontage' on U.S. Highway No. 1. A down payment was deposited in escrow pursuant to the agreement.
Following the execution of the sale agreement, a survey revealed that the property was separated from the pavement of U.S. Highway No. 1 by a state right-of-way 175 feet wide, which ran the length of the property. Because they believed the word 'frontage' in the contract meant that the property abutted the pavement of the highway, petitioners requested the escrow agent to return their down payment. Rather than honor the request, the escrow agent brought an action before a court without jury, in which petitioners and respondent were interpleaded as defendants. Petitioners cross-claimed that respondent misrepresented the boundaries of the property, or, in the alternative, that a mutual mistake existed between the parties requiring rescission of the contract.
At trial, testimony of petitioners and expert witnesses, as well as evidence of physical features of the subject property, supported petitioners' alternative theories of recovery. The trial judge granted judgment for petitioners.
Respondent appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. The opinion rendered by the District Court reviewed the evidence and reversed with instructions to enter judgment in favor of respondent.
Findings of fact by a trial judge are presumed to be correct and are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. Read v. Frizzell, 60 So.2d 172 (Fla.1952). Findings by trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy
...marriage and ordered sale of marital home even though younger child would not reach age of majority for 14 years); Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976). Different triers of fact (whether a jury or a judge) reach different results based upon the particular facts presented in each i......
-
Keller Industries, Inc. v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 82-110
...the policy provisions, rather than expenses for personal injury or property damage resulting from the defective product, Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Neimark v. Abramson, 403 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Atkins v. Keller, 400 So.2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for rev. d......
-
Ess-Food, Eksportslagteriernes Salgsforening v. Rupari Food Services, Inc., ESS-FOO
...we find that the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual determinations. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and its legal conclusions that, in various respects, Rupari ......
-
Flagship Nat. Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc., 84-2115
...with Gray. We disagree. A trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct. Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So.2d 629 (Fla.1982); Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976). "Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evide......