Lovett v. U.S. Bank

183 So. 3d 415, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16838, 2014 WL 5156162
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 15, 2014·No. No. 3D13-2362·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as. to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”); FDIC v. Valente, 553 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“Because a document that has been filed in the public records is still susceptible of reformation, a satisfaction recorded in the public record is not conclusive where the court is presented with the issue of the validity of the satisfaction.”).

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

Lovett v. U.S. Bank, 183 So. 3d 415, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16838, 2014 WL 5156162 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

183 So. 3d 415 (Lovett v. U.S. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Valente
553 So. 2d 763 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)