HAROLD H. GORDON AND HARRY L. HAULMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
COVE REALTY INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves an appeal by defendants from a jury award for real estate broker services. The appellate court found no reversible error regarding liability but determined the damages awarded were excessive. The judgment was affirmed on the condition of a remittitur, otherwise, a new trial on damages would be ordered.
The jury's award of $78,000 was excessive. The court held that the judgment would be affirmed if the plaintiff accepted a reduced amount of $51,800 through a remittitur; otherwise, the judgment would be reversed for a new trial on the issue of damages.
[1] A jury verdict may be corrected by remittitur when the amount of damages awarded is excessive and not supported by the evidence.
[2] A judgment will be affirmed on condition of a voluntary remittitur of the excess amount of damages awarded by the jury.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is our opinion that, except for the excessiveness of damages reflected in the verdict and judgment, no reversible error has been demonstrated.”
Establishes that the court found no error in liability but did find an issue with the damages awarded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a real estate broker, sued the defendant purchasers for services rendered. A jury awarded the plaintiff $78,000. The defendants appeale…
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 Real Estate Broker Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal a jury award of $78,000 as compensation for plaintiff’s services as a real estate broker. We have examined the appellate points and considered the presentations of counsel concerning them. It is our opinion that, except for the excessiveness of damages reflected in the verdict and judgment, no reversible error has been demonstrated.
It is manifest from the proofs that the plaintiff earned and is entitled to payment of a real estate commission from the defendant purchasers, Harold H. Gordon and Harry L. • Haulman, and this was indeed corroborated by the jury verdict in the sum of $78,000. It is equally manifest that the record reveals support for a verdict of $51,800 only, and for no larger sum, based upon the oral agreement between the broker and the purchasers. Searching for the basis for the jury figure, we find it undoubtedly stemmed from their misunderstanding of counsel’s discussion of a confusing paragraph in an unsigned, and thereby irrelevant, contract between the parties.
Thus, we believe there to be a clear legal basis from the record for correcting the erroneous computation and allowing opportunity to make the verdict align with the almost uncontroverted proofs.
Thus, the appealed judgment is affirmed as to liability and damages on condition that, within thirty days after issuance and filing of our mandate, the plaintiff files in this cause in the trial court a voluntary remittitur of $26,200 of the amount of the judgment, so that in sum and substance the judgment will stand corrected so’ as to read in the amount of $51,800; otherwise, the judgment shall stand reversed for a new trial as to the amount of damages. Butler v. Williams, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 109; Great American Ins. Co. v. Suarez, 1932, 107 Fla. 705, 146 So. 644; Aylesworth v. London, Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 816; South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 1922, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247.
It is so ordered.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., and POUL-TON, TIMOTHY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Capobianco v. Palermo, 433 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…s in the sum of $23,625.00. In the event such remittitur is not filed then the trial court should grant a new trial as to damages, only. South Florida Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235, 93 So. 247 (1922); Gordon v. Cove Realty International, Inc., 288 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); see also Aetna Life & Casualty Company v. Little, 384 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Reversed and remanded with instructions. LETTS, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S. Fla. Farms Co. v. Stevenson, 84 Fla. 235 (Fla. 1922)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Suarez, 107 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1932)
- Butler v. Williams, 133 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Myron Aylesworth anti Ralph M. Aylesworth v. London, 119 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)