Osterink v. Moon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Osterink v. Moon

443 So. 2d 388, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2209

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 388 (Osterink v. Moon) 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

Osterink v. Moon, 443 So. 2d 388, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25345 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding support in the record for the trial court’s ruling that no contract existed between the parties, we affirm that decision. We also affirm the trial court’s requirement of the return to the purchaser of his deposit money, plus expenses, and the denial of interest and attorney’s fees. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that Hixon was not bound by the trust agreement.

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding support in the record for the trial court’s ruling that no contract existed between the parties, we affirm that decision. We also affirm the trial court’s requirement of the return to the purchaser of his deposit money, plus expenses, and the denial of interest and attorney’s fees. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that Hixon was not bound by the trust agreement.

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 388, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osterink-v-moon-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack