Bar-Or v. Ippolito

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bar-Or v. Ippolito

516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 114, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11763, 1987 WL 3340

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1987

DocketNo. 87-1425

StatusPublished

This text of 516 So. 2d 1150 (Bar-Or v. Ippolito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bar-Or v. Ippolito, 516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 114, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11763, 1987 WL 3340 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm that part of the final judgment that awarded appellees damages, prejudgment interest and costs. We also affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellant for appellees’ pro rata share of the electric bill. However, we reverse that part of the judgment that directs appellees to replace the “lawn jockey” which was the subject of Count II of appellant’s counterclaim. Appellant sought damages but made no claim for equitable relief that would support the trial court’s order directing appellees to replace the “lawn jockey.”

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all respects except that we reverse that part of the final judgment that directs appellees to replace the “lawn jockey.” We remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct such further proceedings as may be necessary to establish the reasonable value of the “lawn jockey” and to award that amount as a setoff against the judgment in favor of appellees.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm that part of the final judgment that awarded appellees damages, prejudgment interest and costs. We also affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellant for appellees’ pro rata share of the electric bill. However, we reverse that part of the judgment that directs appellees to replace the “lawn jockey” which was the subject of Count II of appellant’s counterclaim. Appellant sought damages but made no claim for equitable relief that would support the trial court’s order directing appellees to replace the “lawn jockey.”

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all respects except that we reverse that part of the final judgment that directs appellees to replace the “lawn jockey.” We remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct such further proceedings as may be necessary to establish the reasonable value of the “lawn jockey” and to award that amount as a setoff against the judgment in favor of appellees.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 1150, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 114, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11763, 1987 WL 3340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bar-or-v-ippolito-fladistctapp-1987.