In re Pentagon Diversified Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Pentagon Diversified Industries, Inc.

544 So. 2d 344, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1428, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3348, 1989 WL 62393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0212

StatusPublished

This text of 544 So. 2d 344 (In re Pentagon Diversified Industries, 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

In re Pentagon Diversified Industries, Inc., 544 So. 2d 344, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1428, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3348, 1989 WL 62393 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. Appellant never argued to the trial court that the proof of the contents of the lost chattel mortgage was lacking. His objection to the distribution to the appellee of the remaining funds of this dissolved corporation stated that no chattel mortgage or security agreement was signed, a fact question upon which the court ruled against him based upon competent substantial evidence in the record. However, considering the note, the UCC financing statement, and the testimony of the witnesses, the contention raised in this appeal would be without merit. See Barber v. Ehrich, 394 So.2d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. Appellant never argued to the trial court that the proof of the contents of the lost chattel mortgage was lacking. His objection to the distribution to the appellee of the remaining funds of this dissolved corporation stated that no chattel mortgage or security agreement was signed, a fact question upon which the court ruled against him based upon competent substantial evidence in the record. However, considering the note, the UCC financing statement, and the testimony of the witnesses, the contention raised in this appeal would be without merit. See Barber v. Ehrich, 394 So.2d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 344, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1428, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3348, 1989 WL 62393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pentagon-diversified-industries-inc-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack