Burns Trust v. Meccia

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burns Trust v. Meccia

151 So. 2d 289, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3508

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1963

DocketNo. 3088

StatusPublished

This text of 151 So. 2d 289 (Burns Trust v. Meccia) 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

Burns Trust v. Meccia, 151 So. 2d 289, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3508 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee’s claim for the balance due upon an account plus interest was sustained through final judgment entered by the trial court sitting without a jury. Appellants-defendants were in agreement as to the origin of this account and the amount that was due under it but sought to bar recovery by appellee through interposition of the affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction and that of novation. Upon the basis of the evidence and pleadings, the trial judge decided that appellants had failed to prove these defenses, but that the appellee had established his cause of action.

From a careful study, we arrive at the conclusion that the trial court acted properly as to the final judgment entered; but we find that appellee, as a result of negotiations which proved unsuccessful, has in his possession an unrecorded deed to certain property belonging to appellants. We, therefore, while affirming the trial judge in the judgment entered, remand [290]*290the cause for amendment of it requiring' return of this instrument to appellants.

Affirmed but remanded with directions.

KANNER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and WHITE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee’s claim for the balance due upon an account plus interest was sustained through final judgment entered by the trial court sitting without a jury. Appellants-defendants were in agreement as to the origin of this account and the amount that was due under it but sought to bar recovery by appellee through interposition of the affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction and that of novation. Upon the basis of the evidence and pleadings, the trial judge decided that appellants had failed to prove these defenses, but that the appellee had established his cause of action.

From a careful study, we arrive at the conclusion that the trial court acted properly as to the final judgment entered; but we find that appellee, as a result of negotiations which proved unsuccessful, has in his possession an unrecorded deed to certain property belonging to appellants. We, therefore, while affirming the trial judge in the judgment entered, remand [290]*290the cause for amendment of it requiring' return of this instrument to appellants.

Affirmed but remanded with directions.

KANNER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 2d 289, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-trust-v-meccia-fladistctapp-1963.