Dijan v. Levitt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dijan v. Levitt

463 So. 2d 452, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 356, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14096

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-585

StatusPublished

This text of 463 So. 2d 452 (Dijan v. Levitt) 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

Dijan v. Levitt, 463 So. 2d 452, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 356, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14096 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this suit upon promissory notes we do not find reversible error under the facts of this case from the trial court having allowed separate voir dire, questioning of witnesses, and arguments by separate counsel for divorced plaintiffs who were, as husband and wife, co-payees on the notes.

Also, we find no reversible error from the trial court’s exclusion from the evidence of certain corporate checks which were described in testimony and which were, in contrast to other checks admitted into evidence, not to be credited against the notes sued upon.

Further, there was no reversible error in the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to allow plaintiffs, immediately preceding the trial, to amend the pretrial order to list additional documentary evidence when the trial court granted defendants a continuance of the trial to allow them to take a deposition concerning that evidence.

Affirmed.

RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

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