FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. John Bradford
Stetson, Jr., Judge.
R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Jacksonville, for
S. Lippes of Lippes & Bryan, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach, for
no merit in the substantive issues raised by Appellants and
affirm the final judgment without further discussion.
However, because the trial court inadvertently entered
duplicate judgments, [*] we remand for the court to strike the
later-entered judgment. See Diecidue v. Lewis, 42
Fla.L.Weekly D376 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 10, 2017); Sound
Builders of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Hanlon, 439 So.2d
276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
and REMANDED with directions.
and WETHERELL, JJ, CONCUR; WINSOR, J, CONCURRING WITH
WINSOR, J., concurring.
Willens and his wife Sara own a home on Canopy Oaks Drive in
Jacksonville, and they invited Michael's parents to live
there rent free. The parents moved in, the relationship
deteriorated, and everyone ended up in litigation. After a
two-day bench trial, the trial court entered a final judgment
declaring that the parents "are entitled to live in the
home for as long as they like." This is the
facts that led to the final judgment, many of which were
disputed, are complicated and peculiar. The short version is
that the Willenses recognized the parents' financial
needs and sent a letter saying "[y]ou may move into our
home on Canopy Oaks Drive and live as long as you like
rent free." (emphasis in original). The letter
expressed hope that the move would improve the parties'
relationship and noted that "the whole purpose is to
make life easier so that [the parents] can enjoy and build a
life here with [the Willenses]."
were other emails and letters, and the parties considered
other arrangements, but the parents ultimately moved from
Maine and into the Canopy Oaks Drive home. Once there, they
undertook some $160, 000 worth of improvements, to which the
Willenses objected at some point. This and other factors
contributed to the relationship's continued
deterioration, until finally the Willenses asked the parents
to move out. The parents refused and changed the locks, and
the Willneses sued to evict. The parents counterclaimed,
claiming breach-of-contract and promissory estoppel, among
trial, the court entered its final judgment. The court found
the parents' testimony credible, found portions of the
Willenses' testimony "entirely unreasonable,
inconsistent with the documents, and not credible, " and
found the parents had "proved their case . . . by
substantially more than a preponderance of the
evidence." It concluded the parties had a written
agreement with "clear and unequivocal" terms and
that the parents were entitled to specific performance. It
therefore directed the parties "to perform the
agreement, " meaning the Willenses were to let the
parents live in the house indefinitely.
from its ruling on the existence of an agreement, the court
concluded the parents had also proven their claim for
promissory estoppel, finding the parents had
"significantly relied on [the Willenses'] promises
to their detriment." The court awarded no separate
relief on this point, explaining that the parents "are