Klein v. Friedman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Klein v. Friedman

341 So. 2d 527, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15107

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1977

DocketNo. 76-88

StatusPublished

This text of 341 So. 2d 527 (Klein v. Friedman) 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

Klein v. Friedman, 341 So. 2d 527, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15107 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, who were the contract sellers of a large parcel of property, sued for specific performance of a deposit receipt contract and for damages. The trial court, after a trial without jury, found for the defendants, and this appeal followed.

The trial court found that the defendant purchasers were not in default for having failed to close the transaction due to a discrepancy between the land which the defendants were led to believe they would receive under the contract and the land which the plaintiffs were able to deliver. This finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We, therefore, hold that the finding of the trial judge may not be reversed on appeal. See Apeco Marina, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 301 So.2d 136 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, who were the contract sellers of a large parcel of property, sued for specific performance of a deposit receipt contract and for damages. The trial court, after a trial without jury, found for the defendants, and this appeal followed.

The trial court found that the defendant purchasers were not in default for having failed to close the transaction due to a discrepancy between the land which the defendants were led to believe they would receive under the contract and the land which the plaintiffs were able to deliver. This finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. We, therefore, hold that the finding of the trial judge may not be reversed on appeal. See Apeco Marina, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 301 So.2d 136 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 So. 2d 527, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-friedman-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack