Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Frank Silvestri, Inc. v. Hilltop Developers
Citations: 418 So. 2d 1201; 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21056Docket: 81-1184
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 1, 1982; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Frank Silvestri, Inc. and Frank Silvestri appeal a judgment for damages due to breach of a real estate contract by appellee Hilltop Developers, Inc. The original lawsuit sought damages against both the corporation and Silvestri individually. A motion to change the corporate name to Frank Silvestri Investments, Inc. was denied, but the court allowed all three entities to be treated as defendants. The trial court ultimately found all three liable jointly and severally, but the appellate court identified a lack of pleadings alleging joint and several liability, labeling the judgment against the defendants as an error. Furthermore, the court noted confusion stemming from the original contract, which was signed by Silvestri without establishing his capacity as a representative of the corporation. The trial court's findings indicated Silvestri breached the contract, while the final judgment incorrectly attributed the breach to Frank Silvestri Investments, Inc. The court also assessed errors in the damages awarded. It outlined that, upon a buyer's breach of a land purchase contract, the seller has two remedies: suing for specific performance with damages or retaining the property and suing for breach. In the latter case, damages should reflect the difference between the agreed purchase price and the fair market value at the breach date. The appellate court found no evidence presented regarding the property's fair market value, leading to a reversal of the damages awarded. The case was remanded for repleading and retrial, with all judges concurring. Additional notes indicated that if a seller claims further damages for property maintenance post-breach, those must be proven as a natural result of the breach.