Vining v. Smith
| Decision Date | 25 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76--986,76--1201,s. 76--986 |
| Citation | 343 So.2d 871 |
| Parties | J. Bruce VINING, Appellant, v. Harold C. SMITH and Maude A. Smith, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Barranco, Darlson & Daniel, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Michael Olin, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
These appeals arose from the same lawsuit. They were consolidated for all appellate purposes. both appeals are brought by the defendant, J. Bruce Vining, who is a real estate broker. Vining was sued by Harold and Maude Smith, who claimed that he had breached the confidential relationship of seller and broker by practicing fraud upon them when he concealed facts within his knowledge concerning the greatly increased value of the land that he undertook to sell for them.
At a proper stage in the proceedings in the trial court, the plaintiffs Smith and defendant Vining moved for summary judgments. The Smiths received a partial summary judgment, which found no genuine issue of material fact as to Vining's liability. The trial judge found that the following facts appeared without genuine issue:
The defendant Vining filed a petition for rehearing directed to the partial summary judgment; the petition was denied.
It appears from Vining's statement of facts upon the second appeal, that he subsequently filed a motion to set aside the partial summary judgment as to liability on the ground that the second depositions of the Smiths, taken after the partial summary judgment, directly contradicted their testimony in their first deposition. The second appeal is from the order denying Vining's motion which his brief states was filed pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b).
It must first be noted that we do not have a complete record of the proceedings upon the motions for summary judgment. See Fernandez v. Arocha, 308 So.2d 45 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
Proceeding upon the record that we do have before us, we find that no genuine issue of material fact exists...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Field
...expressly assents thereto or acquiesces in such a course, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances. Vining v. Smith, 343 So.2d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So.2d 518 (Fla.1978); Asher v. Gene Snyder & Co., 311 So.2d 155, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Kline v. Pyms ......
-
Gerber v. Keyes Co., s. 83-141
...25 So.2d 4 (1946). The general rule is that a broker cannot act for himself without full disclosure to the principals. Vining v. Smith, 343 So.2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So.2d 518 (Fla.1978). However, Halsey had abrogated its broker-client relationship with Keyes by submit......
-
Phillips Chemical Co. v. Morgan
...for the agent's own benefit. Connelly v. Special Road & Bridge Dist. No. 5, 99 Fla. 456, 126 So. 794, 797 (1930); Vining v. Smith, 343 So.2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So.2d 518 (Fla.1978). It is also plain that Gamble and Gam-Co were well aware of that breach. Under these ci......
-
Smith v. Vining, s. 79-915
...judgment against Vining on the issue of his liability to the Smiths for the fraudulent secret profit he obtained. Vining v. Smith, 343 So.2d 871 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So.2d 518 (Fla.1978). On remand, trial resulted in a jury award to the Smiths of compensatory damages totalin......