Brunsco v. Noonan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brunsco v. Noonan

456 So. 2d 547, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2063, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15156

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1984

DocketNos. 83-670, 83-2485

StatusPublished

This text of 456 So. 2d 547 (Brunsco v. Noonan) 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

Brunsco v. Noonan, 456 So. 2d 547, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2063, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15156 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Noonan, doing business as Karl Noonan Realty, appeals from the trial court’s order granting Bruns and Brunsco’s motion for relief from judgment on the basis that evidence of Noonan’s assignment of his rights to all proceeds received as a result of a successful suit against Bruns and Brunsco constitutes “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We reverse. Evidence of Noonan’s assignment is not material to any issue in the case and thus does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc., 370 So.2d 829, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

We affirm the court’s denial of Noonan’s motion for additur on the authority of Healy v. Atwater, 269 So.2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 537 (Fla.1973). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find that they are without merit.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict in favor of Noonan.

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

PER CURIAM.

Noonan, doing business as Karl Noonan Realty, appeals from the trial court’s order granting Bruns and Brunsco’s motion for relief from judgment on the basis that evidence of Noonan’s assignment of his rights to all proceeds received as a result of a successful suit against Bruns and Brunsco constitutes “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We reverse. Evidence of Noonan’s assignment is not material to any issue in the case and thus does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc., 370 So.2d 829, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

We affirm the court’s denial of Noonan’s motion for additur on the authority of Healy v. Atwater, 269 So.2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 537 (Fla.1973). We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find that they are without merit.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict in favor of Noonan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 547, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2063, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunsco-v-noonan-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack