Case Name: Avi LIMOR, Appellant, v. Nanci CONLI, Realtor, individually and for the Use and Benefit of Joe COMESANA, Nathaniel Ambers, and Ayke Rattansey, as Trustee, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-11-23
Citations: 424 So. 2d 31
Docket Number: Nos. 82-357, 82-393 and 82-687
Parties: Avi LIMOR, Appellant, v. Nanci CONLI, Realtor, individually and for the Use and Benefit of Joe COMESANA, Nathaniel Ambers, and Ayke Rattansey, as Trustee, Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
Avi LIMOR, Appellant, v. Nanci CONLI, Realtor, individually and for the Use and Benefit of Joe COMESANA, Nathaniel Ambers, and Ayke Rattansey, as Trustee, Appellees.
Nos. 82-357, 82-393 and 82-687.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 23, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1983.
Howard W. Mazloff, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Frank, Strelkow & Gay and Peter Strel-kow, Goodhart & Rosner, Daniels & Hicks and Elizabeth K. Clarke, Miami, for appel-lees.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment awarding appellees a brokerage commission, the judgment indemnifying appellees, and the judgment for costs. Appellant, as the third-party defendant-indemnitor, may not complain that the verdict was inadequate when any error inured to his benefit, McMullen v. Hoofnagle, 106 Fla. 16, 142 So. 598 (1932); Golden v. Harrell, 147 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 155 So.2d 150 (Fla.1963); see Edmundson v. Swope, 395 So.2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); thus, appellant's contention that the evidence supported only a larger award than that returned by the jury, or nothing at all, is unavailing. Because appellant failed to request a jury instruction on damages and objected neither to the verdict forms nor to the instructions, accord Golden v. Harrell; see Wright v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Miami, 256 So.2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470, we reject his contention.
Appellant declined to appear and defend the action seeking indemnification under the contract although he received timely notice; consequently the third-party complaint resulted in a conclusive adverse judgment. McArthur v. Gaines, 286 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Olin's Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Royal Continental Hotels, Inc., 187 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 194 So.2d 621 (Fla.1966); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. J.C. Penney Co., 166 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); see Hull & Company v. McGetrick, 414 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We reject as without merit appellant's remaining contentions.
Affirmed.