Tucker v. Sansom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tucker v. Sansom

590 So. 2d 532, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12303, 1991 WL 259962

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1991

DocketNo. 91-1167

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 532 (Tucker v. Sansom) 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

Tucker v. Sansom, 590 So. 2d 532, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12303, 1991 WL 259962 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, as grantor, joined by his wife, executed a deed to their marital home to appellee’s step-children (appellants) as grantees. The wife died. The grantor moved to other housing. The grantees took possession and rented the property. The grantor brought this action to rescind and cancel his deed on various grounds and for mesne profits. The trial court can-celled the deed and awarded the grantor $1,478.80 as costs and $9,553.66 as damages. The damages were calculated based on findings that the grantees collected rent of $7,460 and reasonably expended $6,356.34 for maintenance (for a difference, or net profit, of $1,103.66) and that the grantor was entitled to recover $8,450 paid for the cost of substitute housing while he was not in possession. The trial court added the $1,103.66 to the $8,450 and entered a money judgment against the grantees for the total damages of $9,553.66. The grantees appeal.

We find there is substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings of fact supporting the rescission of the deed.

The grantor was not entitled to recover the net rentals plus his cost of substitute housing because if the grantor, rather than the grantees, had possession, the grantor could not have both rented the property and occupied it as his home. The award of damages is duplicative and we hereby modify the judgment to reduce it to the sum of $1,103.66 plus $1,478.80 for a total of $2,582.46.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, as grantor, joined by his wife, executed a deed to their marital home to appellee’s step-children (appellants) as grantees. The wife died. The grantor moved to other housing. The grantees took possession and rented the property. The grantor brought this action to rescind and cancel his deed on various grounds and for mesne profits. The trial court can-celled the deed and awarded the grantor $1,478.80 as costs and $9,553.66 as damages. The damages were calculated based on findings that the grantees collected rent of $7,460 and reasonably expended $6,356.34 for maintenance (for a difference, or net profit, of $1,103.66) and that the grantor was entitled to recover $8,450 paid for the cost of substitute housing while he was not in possession. The trial court added the $1,103.66 to the $8,450 and entered a money judgment against the grantees for the total damages of $9,553.66. The grantees appeal.

We find there is substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings of fact supporting the rescission of the deed.

The grantor was not entitled to recover the net rentals plus his cost of substitute housing because if the grantor, rather than the grantees, had possession, the grantor could not have both rented the property and occupied it as his home. The award of damages is duplicative and we hereby modify the judgment to reduce it to the sum of $1,103.66 plus $1,478.80 for a total of $2,582.46.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 532, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12303, 1991 WL 259962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-sansom-fladistctapp-1991.