FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., D/B/A BURDINES, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM PLANES AND MRS. WILLIAM PLANES, HIS WIFE, 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.
Federated Department Stores (Burdines) appealed a judgment requiring it to remove carpeting and ruling against its claim for $6,000 in unpaid carpeting purchases. The trial court found the carpeting was already wet at installation, supporting the defendants' breach of warranty defense, and the appellate court affirmed based on substantial competent evidence supporting the trial judge's findings.
The trial court's judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed. The court found substantial competent evidence supported the trial judge's findings that the carpeting was already wet at installation, constituting a breach of warranty of merchantability, and properly ordered Burdines to remove the carpeting.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact in a non-jury trial are presumed correct on appeal and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
[2] The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate clear error in the trial court's findings of fact.
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“When a trial judge hears a cause without a jury as in the case sub judice, it is his duty to reconcile the conflicting evidence and the appellate court is not authorized to reverse unless his findings are clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for bench trials—findings of fact are reviewed only for clear error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants William and Mrs. William Planes purchased approximately $6,000 worth of wall-to-wall carpeting from Burdines, which Burdines installed in t…
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 Revocation Of Acceptance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a non-jury trial entered in favor of defendants in an action for monies due and owing for the purchase of wall to wall carpeting by the defendants from the plaintiff.
The record indicates that the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. William Planes, purchased some $6,000.00 worth of carpeting from the plaintiff, Burdines, which was installed by Burdines in their home. Subsequently, the seams in the carpeting split, and upon examination, the carpeting was found to be wet. The defendants refused to pay, whereupon the plaintiff filed suit seeking to recover the monies due and owing for the carpeting. The defendants’ amended counterclaim alleged breach of warranty of merchantability and sought revocation of acceptance of the carpeting pursuant to § 672.2-608, Fla.Stat. At the trial, the plaintiff contended that the moisture was seeping up into the carpeting from the concrete slab on which it was installed. The defendants contended that the carpeting was already wet at the time the plaintiff installed it. After a full hearing on the merits, the court entered judgment for the defendants and ordered that the plaintiff remove all of the subject carpeting within thirty days. This appeal ensued.
When a trial judge hears a cause without a jury as in the case sub judice, it is his duty to reconcile the conflicting evidence and the appellate court is not authorized to reverse unless his findings are clearly erroneous. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 346 (1963) and cases cited therein. The judgment comes to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and it is the appellant’s burden to make error clearly appear. Mitchell v. Morse Operations, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 248. After careful scrutiny of the record on appeal, we find there was substantial competent evidence to support the judgment, and finding no reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248, 248-49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The standard of review for an award of attorney’s fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293,…
-
Juv. Diabetes Research Found. v. Rievman, 370 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ntly correct in entering the final judgment from which this appeal is taken. D We have examined the other contentions raised by the defendant Foundation on this appeal and find them to be without merit. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Dade National Bank of Miami v. Kay, 131 So. 2d 24 (Fla.3d DCA 1961). In particular, we find that there was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have concluded that all the terms of the one year oral contract of emp…
-
Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248, 248-^9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In this case, the trial court issued a very detailed order specifically listing the facts upon [*1145] which it relied as well as detailed conclusions o…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Delfin J. Quesada v. State, 276 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)