Von Zamft v. Cohen, 90-1604

• Decision Date: 26 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-1604,90-1604
• Citation: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 568,578 So.2d 295
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Spike VON ZAMFT, Appellant, v. Herman COHEN, Appellee. 578 So.2d 295, 16 Fla. L. Week. 568

Page 295

578 So.2d 295

Spike VON ZAMFT, Appellant, v. Herman COHEN, Appellee.

No. 90-1604.

578 So.2d 295, 16 Fla. L. Week. 568

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County; Margarita Esquiroz, Judge.

Norman Malinski, Miami, for appellant.

Bedzow Korn Kan & Glaser and Allan Glaser, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated in the primary judgment below entered after a non-jury trial and challenged on the main appeal. Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869 (1921); see Martin County v. Johnson, 570 So.2d 1378, 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); GAC Properties, Inc. v. Carmine, 258 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

On the cross-appeal, however, we conclude that Cohen is entitled to recover $46,500, plus interest, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties which was not, but should have been, enforced below. See 2 Fla.Jur.2d Agreed Case and Stipulations Sec. 15 (1977). In reaching both of these determinations, we have applied the rule that the fact that a party has engaged in inequitable conduct as a general matter or with respect to the public or a third person, see The Florida Bar v. Cohen, 534 So.2d 392 (Fla.1988), reinstatement denied, 560 So.2d 785 (Fla.1990), does not affect his legal rights as to another person to whom the improper activity was not directed. Miller v. Berry, 78 Fla. 98, 82 So. 764 (1919).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.