Cancelliere v. BancFlorida FSB

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cancelliere v. BancFlorida FSB

590 So. 2d 23, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11927, 1991 WL 248631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 27, 1991

DocketNo. 91-01244

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 23 (Cancelliere v. BancFlorida FSB) 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

Cancelliere v. BancFlorida FSB, 590 So. 2d 23, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11927, 1991 WL 248631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the denial of unemployment compensation to the former bank employee by reason of his misconduct. During the time he had been vice-president in charge of corporate banking, the employee had written a number of overdrafts on his account with the bank contrary to the bank’s rules promulgated to its employees and had continued to do so after having been warned. See Azzari v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board, 104 Pa.Commw. 254, 521 A.2d 539 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1987) (employee flatly refused to work out repayment schedule with employer after defaulting on loan). Compare Billingsley v. Iowa Dept. of Job Service, 338 N.W.2d 538 (Iowa Ct.App.1983); Tarver v. Ross, 64 A.D.2d 760, 406 N.Y.S.2d 928 (N.Y.App.Div.1978) (no showing that overdrafts by employee in account with employee bank were intentional).

RYDER, A.CX, and PARKER, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the denial of unemployment compensation to the former bank employee by reason of his misconduct. During the time he had been vice-president in charge of corporate banking, the employee had written a number of overdrafts on his account with the bank contrary to the bank’s rules promulgated to its employees and had continued to do so after having been warned. See Azzari v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board, 104 Pa.Commw. 254, 521 A.2d 539 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1987) (employee flatly refused to work out repayment schedule with employer after defaulting on loan). Compare Billingsley v. Iowa Dept. of Job Service, 338 N.W.2d 538 (Iowa Ct.App.1983); Tarver v. Ross, 64 A.D.2d 760, 406 N.Y.S.2d 928 (N.Y.App.Div.1978) (no showing that overdrafts by employee in account with employee bank were intentional).

RYDER, A.CX, and PARKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 23, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11927, 1991 WL 248631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cancelliere-v-bancflorida-fsb-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack