Kahlert v. Tom Heller, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kahlert v. Tom Heller, Inc.

557 So. 2d 111, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1990 WL 8587

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1990

DocketNo. 88-3106

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 111 (Kahlert v. Tom Heller, Inc.) 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

Kahlert v. Tom Heller, Inc., 557 So. 2d 111, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1990 WL 8587 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, Judge.

We have examined all thirteen points and sub-points raised by appellants as to the rulings, jury verdict, and final judgment entered in the proceedings below. We find no merit in any of the points raised and therefore affirm the verdict and judgment entered thereon, except as set forth below.

Appellee/cross appellant, in its cross appeal, raises the issue as to whether the codefendant and cross appellee King Motor Company of Deerfield, having been found liable for tortious interference with a contractual arrangement, could be held to only $1.00 damages. We hold that was error and therefore reverse. Given the facts of this case, wherein King’s codefendant, Kahlert, was found liable for payment of the real estate broker's commission in the amount of $100,200.91 plus accrued interest to Heller, and the jury having found King guilty for tortious interference, the codefendants should thus have been held jointly and severally liable for the entire $100,201.91.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an amended final judgment consistent with this opinion.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, Judge.

We have examined all thirteen points and sub-points raised by appellants as to the rulings, jury verdict, and final judgment entered in the proceedings below. We find no merit in any of the points raised and therefore affirm the verdict and judgment entered thereon, except as set forth below.

Appellee/cross appellant, in its cross appeal, raises the issue as to whether the codefendant and cross appellee King Motor Company of Deerfield, having been found liable for tortious interference with a contractual arrangement, could be held to only $1.00 damages. We hold that was error and therefore reverse. Given the facts of this case, wherein King’s codefendant, Kahlert, was found liable for payment of the real estate broker's commission in the amount of $100,200.91 plus accrued interest to Heller, and the jury having found King guilty for tortious interference, the codefendants should thus have been held jointly and severally liable for the entire $100,201.91.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of an amended final judgment consistent with this opinion.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 111, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1990 WL 8587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahlert-v-tom-heller-inc-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack