Coffey v. Halvorsen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coffey v. Halvorsen

827 So. 2d 1119, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15160, 2002 WL 31322530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-2725

StatusPublished

This text of 827 So. 2d 1119 (Coffey v. Halvorsen) 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

Coffey v. Halvorsen, 827 So. 2d 1119, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15160, 2002 WL 31322530 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a damages award in an action arising out of a failed agreement for the purchase of real estate. Appellant contends that the award duplicates certain items of damage.

There is no trial transcript. Appellant asks us to reverse based on the court’s recitation of the damages calculation in the judgment and review of exhibits. Although, on the face of the'judgment, it appears that the trial court may have awarded certain items twice, on examination of the record, the issue is not so clear. The numbers quoted by both parties in court filings are all over the map and the documents are not consistent. This asserted discrepancy was brought to the trial court’s attention in defendant’s motion for rehearing, and the trial court denied relief. On this record, we are unable to say that the trial court erred.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a damages award in an action arising out of a failed agreement for the purchase of real estate. Appellant contends that the award duplicates certain items of damage.

There is no trial transcript. Appellant asks us to reverse based on the court’s recitation of the damages calculation in the judgment and review of exhibits. Although, on the face of the'judgment, it appears that the trial court may have awarded certain items twice, on examination of the record, the issue is not so clear. The numbers quoted by both parties in court filings are all over the map and the documents are not consistent. This asserted discrepancy was brought to the trial court’s attention in defendant’s motion for rehearing, and the trial court denied relief. On this record, we are unable to say that the trial court erred.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 So. 2d 1119, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15160, 2002 WL 31322530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffey-v-halvorsen-fladistctapp-2002.