DADE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BROKS CENTER, LIMITED, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dade Savings & Loan Association appeals a declaratory decree judgment in a property sale dispute, challenging the trial court's appointment of an appraiser to assess office property value. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the appointment and noting that Dade Savings had waived objections to the court's authority by implicitly conceding it throughout the proceedings.
The trial court did not err in appointing an appraiser. Dade Savings waived any objections to the court's authority to appoint an appraiser by implicitly conceding the court's authority throughout the proceedings below. Additionally, appointing the general master as the appraiser was not an abuse of discretion because the master was a duly qualified and fair appraiser, not biased against Dade Savings.
[1] A party may waive objections to the court's authority to appoint an appraiser by implicitly conceding that authority throughout the proceedings.
[2] A trial court may appoint an appraiser to assess property value when a prior appraisal is found to be erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Dade Savings has waived any objections below as to the court's authority to appoint an appraiser in this case, as it implicitly conceded same throughout the proceedings below.”
Establishes that appellant waived its challenge to the trial court's authority by failing to object and by implicitly consenting to the appointment procedure.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade Savings and Broks Center were parties to a contract for the sale of office property. A prior appraisal of the property was disputed. Dade Savings…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract For Sale Of Real Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dade Savings & Loan Association appeals an adverse final judgment entered in a declaratory decree action filed by Broks Center, Limited, involving a contract for the sale of office property by Broks Center as seller, to Dade Savings as buyer. We find no error, as urged, in the court’s appointment of an appraiser in this case to assess the value of the subject office property. We reach this result based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, Dade Savings suggested below that a general master be appointed to determine whether a prior disputed appraisal of the property was erroneously arrived at under sound appraisal procedures, and, if so, that the court, among other options, could appoint another appraiser to properly appraise the property.
Second, the trial court followed this suggestion and, with the consent of both parties, appointed a general master to determine the validity of the above-stated prior appraisal.
Third, the general master’s report concluded that the aforesaid prior appraisal improperly omitted a vital appraisal factor and was, accordingly, erroneous — which report the trial court, without objection, adopted in its entirety.
Fourth, the trial court further followed Dade Savings’ initial suggestion and appointed another appraiser, the general master herein, who assessed the value of the property in accord with proper appraisal standards.
Fifth, Dade Savings has waived any objections below as to the court’s authority to appoint an appraiser in this case, as it implicitly conceded same throughout the proceedings below. See Williams v. Great American Bank of Dade County, 435 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So. 2d 572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980); Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1971).
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in appointing the general master as the fourth appraiser because the general master was not, as urged, biased against Dade Savings, see Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 861 (Fla.1956); Claughton v. Claughton, 452 So. 2d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1330 (Fla.1986), but was a duly qualified and fair appraiser. See Horowitz’s Estate v. City of Miami Beach, 420 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State Road Dept. v. Outlaw, 148 So. 2d 741, 742-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Broks Ctr., 529 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…t’s directive, the special master appraised the building. The trial court set the purchase price to reflect the special master’s appraisal. This court upheld the validity of the method of valuation in Dade Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Broks Center, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Broks Center then filed a motion for attorney’s fees on the ground that it was the prevailing party in its action. The trial court awarded Broks Center $100,000 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ stipulation that the amo…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- F. K. G. Co., Inc. v. Keys Bottled GAS Co., 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1957)
- Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1956)
- Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. Fred Howland, Inc., 243 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Claughton v. Edward N. Claughton and the Honorable Richard S. Fuller, 452 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Outlaw, 148 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Allen v. Emp'rs Serv. Corp., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Hunter v. Bohnert Roofing & Supply Co., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Est. OF Maurice (Moe) Horowitz v. City OF Miami Beach, 420 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Johnson v. State, 435 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)