Case Name: Patricia H. PENDLETON, Appellant, v. Scott WITCOSKI and Garth Witcoski, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-25
Citations: 836 So. 2d 1025
Docket Number: No. 1D01-3689
Parties: Patricia H. PENDLETON, Appellant, v. Scott WITCOSKI and Garth Witcoski, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 836
Pages: 1025–1030

Head Matter:
Patricia H. PENDLETON, Appellant, v. Scott WITCOSKI and Garth Witcoski, Appellee.
No. 1D01-3689.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 25, 2002.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 2003.
Robert Rivas, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert E. Biasotti of Carlton Fields, P.A., St. Petersburg; and Luis Prats and Matthew R. Cogburn of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Equitable remedy of rescission lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So.2d 984, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 725 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1998). To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court must apply the "reasonableness" test. If reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable, and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-1203 (Fla.1980).
We hold that, under the facts of this case, as shown by the record, reasonable people could differ as to whether there was a mutual mistake of fact going to an essential element of the contract that entitled the parties to rescission of the contract. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering rescission, and we affirm the decision below.
BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur; ERVIN, J., dissents with written opinion.