Flagship National Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flagship National Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc.

445 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11907

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1228

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 1080 (Flagship National Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc.) 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

Flagship National Bank v. Gray Distribution Systems, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11907 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s opinion reported in Flagship National Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) the matter recurred in the trial court which entered a judgment on severed count VI of the counter-claim finding that the settlement agreement of November 20, 1978, was procured in part through the breach of the fidelity owed to the appellees by their attorney, which fidelity was compromised by the appellant bank. This appeal ensued. We find that it is an appealable order. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). Following a review of the record and the findings of fact made by the trial judge, we affirm same. Smith v. Hamilton, 428 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Mori v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, 380 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Castellanos v. Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank, 330 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Brune v. Kings Creek of Gainesville, Inc., 317 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s opinion reported in Flagship National Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) the matter recurred in the trial court which entered a judgment on severed count VI of the counter-claim finding that the settlement agreement of November 20, 1978, was procured in part through the breach of the fidelity owed to the appellees by their attorney, which fidelity was compromised by the appellant bank. This appeal ensued. We find that it is an appealable order. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). Following a review of the record and the findings of fact made by the trial judge, we affirm same. Smith v. Hamilton, 428 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Mori v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, 380 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Castellanos v. Hialeah-Miami Springs First State Bank, 330 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Brune v. Kings Creek of Gainesville, Inc., 317 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagship-national-bank-v-gray-distribution-systems-inc-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack