Brown v. Fine

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. Fine

102 So. 2d 830, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2862

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1958

DocketNo. 57-273

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 102 So. 2d 830 (Brown v. Fine) 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

Brown v. Fine, 102 So. 2d 830, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2862 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, brought an action at law to recover the amount of a “deposit” upon a real estate transaction. The appellants were sellers and they proceeded to the closing even though the purchaser had failed to make the deposit provided by the contract of sale. The appellee-defendant refused to proceed with the closing. In addition to the above stated facts, the complaint alleged actual damages in amount of $127.50. It should be noted that the ap-pellee has not favored this court with a brief as is his duty. Rule 3.7, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Bolles v. Carson, 73 Fla. 504, 74 So. 509.

The complaint for recovery of a deposit not actually made was properly dismissed. The motion for dismissal was upon two grounds: one, failure to state a cause of action; two, jurisdiction of the amount in controversy. Upon the latter ground the action for actual damages may be transferred to the court having jurisdiction of the amount involved. Rule 1.39 (b), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F. S.A. The cause is remanded for such an order, if the appellant shall properly move for the order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J„ and HORTON, J., concur.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, brought an action at law to recover the amount of a “deposit” upon a real estate transaction. The appellants were sellers and they proceeded to the closing even though the purchaser had failed to make the deposit provided by the contract of sale. The appellee-defendant refused to proceed with the closing. In addition to the above stated facts, the complaint alleged actual damages in amount of $127.50. It should be noted that the ap-pellee has not favored this court with a brief as is his duty. Rule 3.7, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Bolles v. Carson, 73 Fla. 504, 74 So. 509.

The complaint for recovery of a deposit not actually made was properly dismissed. The motion for dismissal was upon two grounds: one, failure to state a cause of action; two, jurisdiction of the amount in controversy. Upon the latter ground the action for actual damages may be transferred to the court having jurisdiction of the amount involved. Rule 1.39 (b), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F. S.A. The cause is remanded for such an order, if the appellant shall properly move for the order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J„ and HORTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 2d 830, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-fine-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack