Case ID: so2d_508/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth B. HUTCHINS, Appellant, v. Charles T. HUTCHINS, et al., Appellees.
    No. 85-1834.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    April 16, 1987.
    Rehearing Denied June 3, 1987.
    Hal K. Litchford and Robert W. Burijon, Jr. of Litchford, Christopher & Milbrath, Orlando, for appellant.
    Patricia Fields Anderson and Frank McClung of McClung & Anderson, Brooks-ville, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

From the record we find evidence upon which the jury could have based its verdict for $30,000 compensatory damages on the appellee’s claim for malicious interference with a business relationship. However, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the $35,000 punitive damages verdict. On this appeal appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence as to the $20,-000 award for unlawful interception of a communication under the wiretapping statute (section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1985)). Accordingly, the final judgment is reduced to $50,000 and, as modified, is

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.