MCDANIEL RANCH PARTNERSHIP, A FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP; J.W. MCDANIEL, SR., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; MARY MCDANIEL, ROBERT E. MCDANIEL, JR., AND JOHN L. MCDANIEL, AS TRUSTEES OF THE ROBERT E. MCDANIEL, SR. RESIDUARY MARITAL TRUST; MARY MCDANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY; ROBERT E. MCDANIEL, JR., INDIVIDUALLY; AND JOHN L. MCDANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MCDANIEL RESERVE REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND MCDANIEL RESERVE HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 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.
The court affirmed the final judgment, finding no reversible error in the eight issues raised.
Appellants appealed a final judgment. The trial court had commented on a potential future amendment to seek damages in lieu of specific performance.…
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 Duty Of Candor To The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
We have reviewed the eight issues raised by the appellants and conclude that none present reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment. However, we make the following observations.
First, the trial court commented that notwithstanding its entry of final judgment, the appellees may later move to amend their claim of specific performance to seek damages in lieu of specific performance. We interpret that part of the final judgment as addressing a future procedural issue. Our affirmance should not be interpreted as approval of that procedural comment or as an indication of whether such a procedure would be proper.
Second, we are troubled by certain arguments made by the appellants’ counsel before this court. For example, counsel argued that the appellants were not put on notice of the issue of anticipatory repudiation. However, the record on appeal contains the joint pretrial stipulation, signed by trial counsel for both parties, specifically identifying anticipatory repudiation as an issue to be tried. This discrepancy was brought out at oral argument, yet counsel persisted in contending that there was no notice of the issue. It is evident to this court that counsel’s argument was not supported by the record on appeal, and we take this opportunity to remind counsel of the duty of candor to the court. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(l).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Julianne Holt v. Honorable Tracy Sheehan, 122 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ourt occasionally will criticize even seasoned appellate attorneys when their advocacy in a particular case does not live up to their usual high standards of professionalism. See, e.g., McDaniel Ranch P'ship v. McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC, 100 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). The order challenged in this case, however, is not a prompt; it is scandalous comment having no place in a court record.…
-
McDANIEL Ranch P'ship v. McDANIEL Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC, 100 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ALTENBERND, Judge. This appeal involves the same parties and the same underlying case as McDaniel Ranch Partnership v. McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC, 100 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), in which a separate opinion is being issued on the same day as this opinion. This appeal involves proceedings in the trial court that occurred during the pendency of the appeal in case number 2D10-2414 as a result of an order of…