Crooks v. Atlantic National Bank of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crooks v. Atlantic National Bank of Florida

445 So. 2d 1042, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11401

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1984

DocketNo. 83-268

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 1042 (Crooks v. Atlantic 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

Crooks v. Atlantic National Bank of Florida, 445 So. 2d 1042, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11401 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a promissory note case. The facts which un-derly the judgment are unique and we are quite confident they shall remain so. For that reason and because no benefit to anyone would result in the exposure of them, we do not set out the facts.

We affirm the judgment of the court because it is based upon evidentiary factual findings adverse to appellant although we recognize the case could well have been decided by the trial court adverse to appellee. We do not, and cannot, reweigh factual findings of trial courts; we only determine if they are legally sufficient to support the judgment. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255 (Fla.1956); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The appellant here was not dealt with as he should have been. The actions of the bank officer, Ziegler, acknowledged by the parties hereto as the primary wrongdoer, were certainly not within usual banking practices, as frankly admitted by the bank. The trial judge’s absolution of the bank is legally correct, however, based upon the pleadings and evidence in support of those pleadings. There were no allegations of negligent hiring or negligent supervision against the bank or against the immediate supervisor of the wrongdoer, hence that issue is not before us at this time.

We affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, J., and DIAMANTIS, G.N., Associate Judge, concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a promissory note case. The facts which un-derly the judgment are unique and we are quite confident they shall remain so. For that reason and because no benefit to anyone would result in the exposure of them, we do not set out the facts.

We affirm the judgment of the court because it is based upon evidentiary factual findings adverse to appellant although we recognize the case could well have been decided by the trial court adverse to appellee. We do not, and cannot, reweigh factual findings of trial courts; we only determine if they are legally sufficient to support the judgment. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255 (Fla.1956); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The appellant here was not dealt with as he should have been. The actions of the bank officer, Ziegler, acknowledged by the parties hereto as the primary wrongdoer, were certainly not within usual banking practices, as frankly admitted by the bank. The trial judge’s absolution of the bank is legally correct, however, based upon the pleadings and evidence in support of those pleadings. There were no allegations of negligent hiring or negligent supervision against the bank or against the immediate supervisor of the wrongdoer, hence that issue is not before us at this time.

We affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, J., and DIAMANTIS, G.N., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 1042, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crooks-v-atlantic-national-bank-of-florida-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack