BRINK DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
J. EVANS ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
The court held that the prior $100,000 damage award lacked legal and factual basis and that the evidence supported an award of $131,000.
This is the second appeal in a breach of contract case where the trial court awarded $100,000 in damages. The appellate court previously remanded for …
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 Appellate Review Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appearance of the case in this court. In Brink Distributors, Inc. v. J. Evans Associates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (Brink I), the trial court found that the Appellees had breached the contract and awarded damages of $100,000. Appellants argued that no apparent view of the evidence supported the award to them of only $100,000.1 This court agreed and instructed the trial court on remand to explain how the $100,000 figure was reached. The trial court’s response confirms that there was no legal or factual basis for the $100,000 award. Our independent review of the record reveals that the evidence supports an award of $131,000. Accordingly, we remand for entry of judgment in that amount.
Upon remand, we direct that the case be assigned to a trial court judge other than that originally hearing the case. In addition to entering the $131,000 judgment in Appellants’ favor, the newly assigned trial court judge is directed to award prejudgment interest on the $131,000 calculated from the date of closing and to determine an appropriate amount of appellate attorney’s fees to award Appellants for Brink I.
REMANDED with directions.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . The court’s determination that the contract had been breached was not appealed. Thus, the issue presented in both Brink I and this appeal is the amount of damages to be awarded. By our conclusion, we inherently reject the argument raised in the cross-appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…’s procedural rules promulgated in Amendments to the Florida Rides of Appellate Procedure, 696 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1996) (hereinafter Amendments I). For purposes of oral argument, on our own motion, we consolidated Maddox with Hyden, Edwards v. State, 707 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and Speights v. State, 711 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed and remanded, 749 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1999). On our own motion, we now consolidate these cases for disposition in this opinion.2 We anticipate that the amendments t…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Brink Distribs., Inc. v. J. Evans Assocs., Inc., 667 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)