Mesa v. Bank of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mesa v. Bank of Miami

525 So. 2d 989, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2134, 1988 WL 50676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1034

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 989 (Mesa v. Bank of Miami) 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

Mesa v. Bank of Miami, 525 So. 2d 989, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2134, 1988 WL 50676 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Dionisio Victor Mesa appeals an adverse final judgment granting reformation of certain notes and enforcing same, the said judgment having been entered below after a nonjury trial. Although the testimony adduced at trial was conflicting, there was sufficient evidence presented below for the trial court to order the subject reformation, see, e.g., Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); moreover, there is no merit in Mesa’s claim that he was denied his right to a jury trial. King Mountain Condominium Ass’n v. Gundlach, 425 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Hawkins v. Rellim Investment Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350, 351 (1926); see generally 22 Fla.Jur.2d Equity §4 et seq. (1980).

We do not reach the plaintiff Bank of Miami’s contentions which seek a reversal of other aspects of the final judgment because it has filed no appeal or cross appeal in this cause; moreover, we decline, under the circumstances of this case, to entertain appellee’s brief before this court as a notice of cross appeal. The final judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Dionisio Victor Mesa appeals an adverse final judgment granting reformation of certain notes and enforcing same, the said judgment having been entered below after a nonjury trial. Although the testimony adduced at trial was conflicting, there was sufficient evidence presented below for the trial court to order the subject reformation, see, e.g., Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); moreover, there is no merit in Mesa’s claim that he was denied his right to a jury trial. King Mountain Condominium Ass’n v. Gundlach, 425 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Hawkins v. Rellim Investment Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350, 351 (1926); see generally 22 Fla.Jur.2d Equity §4 et seq. (1980).

We do not reach the plaintiff Bank of Miami’s contentions which seek a reversal of other aspects of the final judgment because it has filed no appeal or cross appeal in this cause; moreover, we decline, under the circumstances of this case, to entertain appellee’s brief before this court as a notice of cross appeal. The final judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 So. 2d 989, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1252, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2134, 1988 WL 50676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mesa-v-bank-of-miami-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack