Bodree v. First Union National Bank of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bodree v. First Union National Bank of Florida

540 So. 2d 240, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 773, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1525, 1989 WL 27650

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 1989

DocketNo. 88-822

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 240 (Bodree v. First Union National Bank of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bodree v. First Union National Bank of Florida, 540 So. 2d 240, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 773, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1525, 1989 WL 27650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed based on the authority of Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). The trial court struck the affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the maker and guarantors of a corporate promissory note sued upon by appellee in its complaint. Reversal of the trial court’s order would effectively reinstate a valid defense to appellee’s complaint. By fragmenting the appeal and trial of the original complaint, the lower court did not lose jurisdiction over appel-lee’s cause of action under the note. Thus, the parties could be faced with the anomalous result of a judgment on the debt and an, as yet, untried defense to enforcement of that obligation. In dismissing this appeal we withdraw our prior order dated May 24, 1988. In passing, we add that the trial court did not enter judgment on the note. Upon final disposition below, we assume the trial court will enter judgment on all issues consistent with its order granting summary final judgment.

SMITH, C.J., and ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed based on the authority of Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). The trial court struck the affirmative defenses and counterclaims of the maker and guarantors of a corporate promissory note sued upon by appellee in its complaint. Reversal of the trial court’s order would effectively reinstate a valid defense to appellee’s complaint. By fragmenting the appeal and trial of the original complaint, the lower court did not lose jurisdiction over appel-lee’s cause of action under the note. Thus, the parties could be faced with the anomalous result of a judgment on the debt and an, as yet, untried defense to enforcement of that obligation. In dismissing this appeal we withdraw our prior order dated May 24, 1988. In passing, we add that the trial court did not enter judgment on the note. Upon final disposition below, we assume the trial court will enter judgment on all issues consistent with its order granting summary final judgment.

SMITH, C.J., and ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 240, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 773, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1525, 1989 WL 27650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodree-v-first-union-national-bank-of-florida-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack