Industrion, Inc. v. Hialeah Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Industrion, Inc. v. Hialeah Industries, Inc.

593 So. 2d 596, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 1992 WL 21859

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1228

StatusPublished

This text of 593 So. 2d 596 (Industrion, Inc. v. Hialeah 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

Industrion, Inc. v. Hialeah Industries, Inc., 593 So. 2d 596, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 1992 WL 21859 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Industrion, Inc., appeals from an order approving a settlement agreement between National Association of Credit Management of Florida, Inc. (NACM), Sterling & Sterling, Inc., and Sterling and Sterling of Florida, Inc. We affirm.

In 1988, Hialeah Industries, Inc., assigned its assets to NACM pursuant to Chapter 727, Florida Statutes (1987). These assets included a business interruption insurance policy issued by Sterling. NACM brought supplemental proceedings pursuant to section 727.110, Florida Statutes, to collect damages on the policy.

Sterling presented a proposed settlement of claim to NACM. Industrion (Hialeah’s second largest creditor) and other creditors objected to the proposal. After hearing arguments, the trial court deemed the agreement fair and reasonable and approved the settlement.¹

Because the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to base its approval of the settlement, we find that there was no abuse of discretion and, therefore, affirm. See In re Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142, 1158 (5th Cir.) (court order approving settlement reviewed under abuse of discretion standard), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, 109 S.Ct. 311, 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988).

In addition, we find that the other issues on appeal were not properly raised at the trial level and are, therefore, precluded from being raised now. See Hegeman-Harris Co. v. All State Pipe Supply Co., 400 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA) (constitutional issues not raised at trial cannot be raised for first time before District Court of Appeal), rev. dismissed, 411 So.2d 380 (Fla.1981). See also Marsh v. Sarasota County, 97 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957), cert. denied, 101 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1958); accord, Frank v. Pioneer Metals, Inc., 121 So.2d 685, 688 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So.2d 676 (Fla.1960).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Industrion, Inc., appeals from an order approving a settlement agreement between National Association of Credit Management of Florida, Inc. (NACM), Sterling & Sterling, Inc., and Sterling and Sterling of Florida, Inc. We affirm.

In 1988, Hialeah Industries, Inc., assigned its assets to NACM pursuant to Chapter 727, Florida Statutes (1987). These assets included a business interruption insurance policy issued by Sterling. NACM brought supplemental proceedings pursuant to section 727.110, Florida Statutes, to collect damages on the policy.

Sterling presented a proposed settlement of claim to NACM. Industrion (Hialeah’s second largest creditor) and other creditors objected to the proposal. After hearing arguments, the trial court deemed the agreement fair and reasonable and approved the settlement.¹

Because the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to base its approval of the settlement, we find that there was no abuse of discretion and, therefore, affirm. See In re Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142, 1158 (5th Cir.) (court order approving settlement reviewed under abuse of discretion standard), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926, 109 S.Ct. 311, 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988).

In addition, we find that the other issues on appeal were not properly raised at the trial level and are, therefore, precluded from being raised now. See Hegeman-Harris Co. v. All State Pipe Supply Co., 400 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA) (constitutional issues not raised at trial cannot be raised for first time before District Court of Appeal), rev. dismissed, 411 So.2d 380 (Fla.1981). See also Marsh v. Sarasota County, 97 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957), cert. denied, 101 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1958); accord, Frank v. Pioneer Metals, Inc., 121 So.2d 685, 688 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So.2d 676 (Fla.1960).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 So. 2d 596, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 1992 WL 21859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrion-inc-v-hialeah-industries-inc-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack