Case ID: so2d_470/html/0106-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BASKIN, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward C. TIETIG, Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH HUNTOON PAIGE, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a Huntoon, Paige Associates Limited, and Charter Mortgage Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees.
    Nos. 84-726, 84-1611.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 11, 1985.
    
      Edward C. Tietig; Heller & Kaplan and Daniel Neal Heller, Miami, for appellant.
    Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold Ginsberg; Huggett & Martucci, Miami, Kent, Watts & Durden and William G. Cooper, Jacksonville, for appellees.
    Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant presents no reversible error in either the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Merrill Lynch Hun-toon Paige, Inc., or the final judgment in favor of Charter Mortgage Company which followed a non-jury trial.

The judgments are, accordingly, affirmed.

HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

BASKIN, Judge

(dissenting).

I find error in the trial court’s denial of Tietig’s motions to amend his pleadings to conform to the evidence adduced at trial, Siverling v. Siverling, 447 So.2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Di Teodoro v. Lazy Dolphin Development Co., 418 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 427 So.2d 737 (Fla.1983), and in its failure to consider and determine the issue of Charter Mortgage Company’s [Charter] breach of fiduciary duty. See Twenty-Four Collection, Inc. v. M. Weinbaum Construction, Inc., 427 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). For these reasons, I would reverse the final judgment entered in favor of Charter and remand for further proceedings. In all other respects, I agree that affirmance is appropriate.