London v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

London v. Brown

537 So. 2d 612, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2645, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5370, 1988 WL 129082

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2612

StatusPublished

This text of 537 So. 2d 612 (London v. Brown) 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

London v. Brown, 537 So. 2d 612, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2645, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5370, 1988 WL 129082 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

This controversy arose following the sale of improved, residential real property. The seller, at the time of sale, was using the property as a multi-family residence and so represented its use to the buyer. However, in fact, the municipal zoning limited the property’s use to a single family residence and the city, upon being apprised of the situation long after the closing, began levying fines for a continuing violation. Some eighteen months later, a suit for “rescission and damages” was filed.

After a bench trial, the judge concluded that so much water had flowed under the bridge that there was no way to restore the status quo. The trial judge, therefore, denied rescission, but applying the “standards” set forth in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985), decided instead to “fashion an equitable resolution of this matter ... and award damages.” Unfortunately, neither side was satisfied with this solution resulting in both an appeal and a cross appeal. We agree that rescission was not appropriate, but, in part, we reverse the compensatory damages award.

One of the items of damage awarded was $25,163.94 in the form of labor and improvements carried out by the buyer. However, since the result leaves the property in the buyer’s hands, the seller should not be required to reimburse the buyer for improvements from which the buyer will reap the benefit.

In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. This cause is remanded with directions to enter an amended final judgment reducing the amount thereof from $76,163.94 to $51,000.00.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

LETTS, Judge.

This controversy arose following the sale of improved, residential real property. The seller, at the time of sale, was using the property as a multi-family residence and so represented its use to the buyer. However, in fact, the municipal zoning limited the property’s use to a single family residence and the city, upon being apprised of the situation long after the closing, began levying fines for a continuing violation. Some eighteen months later, a suit for “rescission and damages” was filed.

After a bench trial, the judge concluded that so much water had flowed under the bridge that there was no way to restore the status quo. The trial judge, therefore, denied rescission, but applying the “standards” set forth in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985), decided instead to “fashion an equitable resolution of this matter ... and award damages.” Unfortunately, neither side was satisfied with this solution resulting in both an appeal and a cross appeal. We agree that rescission was not appropriate, but, in part, we reverse the compensatory damages award.

One of the items of damage awarded was $25,163.94 in the form of labor and improvements carried out by the buyer. However, since the result leaves the property in the buyer’s hands, the seller should not be required to reimburse the buyer for improvements from which the buyer will reap the benefit.

In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. This cause is remanded with directions to enter an amended final judgment reducing the amount thereof from $76,163.94 to $51,000.00.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 612, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2645, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5370, 1988 WL 129082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-v-brown-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack