Weinman v. Dunin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weinman v. Dunin

705 So. 2d 645, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 408, 1998 WL 17348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 1998

DocketNos. 97-1007, 97-1025

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 645 (Weinman v. Dunin) 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

Weinman v. Dunin, 705 So. 2d 645, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 408, 1998 WL 17348 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Vitor Weinman and Enrique Castillo, appeal from an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

In the underlying equitable action to quiet title, the trial court conducted a bench trial and at the close of the plaintiffs case, granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal finding that the easement in question was valid. After carefully reviewing the record, we find that this was error and conclude that the easement in question should have been can-celled or rescinded because the undisputed evidence showed that consideration was demonstrably intended by the parties as part of the transaction, that there was a failure of consideration because the security wall was never built, and that the grantee would have been unjustly enriched at the grantor’s expense. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Schreiber, 479 So.2d 90 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1160, 106 S.Ct. 2282, 90 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Vitor Weinman and Enrique Castillo, appeal from an adverse final judgment. We reverse.

In the underlying equitable action to quiet title, the trial court conducted a bench trial and at the close of the plaintiffs case, granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal finding that the easement in question was valid. After carefully reviewing the record, we find that this was error and conclude that the easement in question should have been can-celled or rescinded because the undisputed evidence showed that consideration was demonstrably intended by the parties as part of the transaction, that there was a failure of consideration because the security wall was never built, and that the grantee would have been unjustly enriched at the grantor’s expense. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Schreiber, 479 So.2d 90 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1160, 106 S.Ct. 2282, 90 L.Ed.2d 723 (1986).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 645, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 408, 1998 WL 17348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinman-v-dunin-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack