Hollander v. Gramm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollander v. Gramm

555 So. 2d 406, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7001, 1989 WL 149628

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-3092

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 406 (Hollander v. Gramm) 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

Hollander v. Gramm, 555 So. 2d 406, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7001, 1989 WL 149628 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review is affirmed. First, appellant was obliged to honor his agreement with counsel for the appellees Gramm, and therefore appellee Bernard Gramm was entitled to reject appellant’s document entirely. Second, appellee Dorothy Gramm did not sign and was not bound. Third, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion, inter alia, that there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no contract between appellant Hollander and the appellees Gramm. See Hettenbaugh v. Keyes-Ozon-Fincher Ins., Inc., 147 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 155 So.2d 550 (Fla.1963). The judgment in favor of appellees is affirmed in all respects. With regard to the cross-appeal, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellee Howard’s application for attorney’s fees under section 57.-105, Florida Statutes (1987).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review is affirmed. First, appellant was obliged to honor his agreement with counsel for the appellees Gramm, and therefore appellee Bernard Gramm was entitled to reject appellant’s document entirely. Second, appellee Dorothy Gramm did not sign and was not bound. Third, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion, inter alia, that there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no contract between appellant Hollander and the appellees Gramm. See Hettenbaugh v. Keyes-Ozon-Fincher Ins., Inc., 147 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 155 So.2d 550 (Fla.1963). The judgment in favor of appellees is affirmed in all respects. With regard to the cross-appeal, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellee Howard’s application for attorney’s fees under section 57.-105, Florida Statutes (1987).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 406, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2916, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7001, 1989 WL 149628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollander-v-gramm-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack