WEITZER OAK PARK ESTATE, LTD.; WEITZER GROUP, INC.; WEITZER COMMUNITIES, LTD.; WEITZER ESTATES, INC.; WEITZER CONSTRUCTION CORP.; HARRY WEITZER; WEITZER OAK PARKS; AND WEITZER OAK PARKS ESTATES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN PETTO, SUSAN PETTO, DOROTHY KILLIAN, GUILLERMO TORRES, AND BARBARA BROUSSARD, APPELLEES
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.
Five homeowners sued Weitzer entities and individuals for loss of use of residential property. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict supporting damages for loss of use but reversed the trial court's denial of costs to the defendants who prevailed, holding that prevailing parties are entitled to costs as a matter of right under Florida law.
The court affirmed that homeowners presented sufficient evidence of damages for loss of use supported by property owner testimony regarding property value. The court held that prevailing parties are entitled to recover lawful court costs as a matter of right under Florida Statutes § 57.041, and the trial court had no discretion to deny costs to the defendants who recovered judgment.
[1] A property owner's testimony regarding the value of their property is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict for loss of use damages.
[2] A party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs.
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“The plaintiffs, homeowners, introduced sufficient evidence of damages for loss of use of their real property to support the jury verdict.”
Establishes that homeowner testimony regarding property value was sufficient to support the damages award.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFive homeowners (Petto, Killian, Torres, and Broussard) brought an action against Weitzer Oak Park Estates, Ltd., Weitzer Estates, Inc., Weitzer Const…
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.
PER CURIAM.
In consolidated appeals, Weitzer Oak Park Estates, Ltd., Weitzer Estates, Inc., and Weitzer Construction Corp. appeal from a final judgment in an action by five homeowners for loss of use of residential real property and from an order denying rehearing. Weitzer Communities Ltd., Weitzer Group Inc., Harry Weitzer, and Weitzer Oak Park Estates, Inc., appeal from an order denying costs following final judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
We affirm the final judgment and the order denying rehearing. The plaintiffs, homeowners, introduced sufficient evidence of damages for loss of use of their real property to support the jury verdict. See Horn v. Corkland Corp., 518 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (owner of property can testify to value of his property); Harbond, Inc. v. Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961) (same); 24 Fla.Jur.2d § 650 (1981) (where value of property at issue, opinions of property owners as to value of property proper whether property is real or personal). See also Watson v. Jones, 160 Fla. 819, 36 So. 2d 788 (1948).
We reverse the order denying costs to appellants/defendants, Weitzer Communities, Ltd., Weitzer Group, Inc., Harry Weitzer, and Weitzer Oak Park Estates, Inc. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of three of these defendants, and the fourth was voluntarily dismissed. Under section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1987), every party who recovers a judgment in a legal proceeding is entitled as a matter of right to recover lawful court costs, and a trial judge has no discretion to deny costs to the parties recovering judgment. Board of St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Lake Pickett Ltd., 543 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Dragstrem v. Butts, 370 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We glean from the record that many of the costs incurred by Harry Weit-zer, individually, and the Weitzer corporate developers involved in this action are overlapping and that all of these defendants were represented by the same attorney. We suggest that the trial court carefully scrutinize the costs incurred before entering an appropriate cost award to the prevailing defendants.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City of Boca Raton v. Basso (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Harbond, Inc. v. Van Anderson, 134 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- John A. Dragstrem et ux. v. Willis N. Butts et ux., 370 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Governing Bd. of the ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Lake Pickett Ltd., 543 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Cleo C. Watson and Nettie Watson v. Jones, 160 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1948)
- Horn v. Corkland Corp., 518 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)