Pelullo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pelullo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

583 So. 2d 729, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7033, 1991 WL 133901

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1901

StatusPublished

This text of 583 So. 2d 729 (Pelullo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) 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

Pelullo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 583 So. 2d 729, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7033, 1991 WL 133901 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the money judgment entered against the guarantor of promissory notes to the liquidator of an insolvent bank. The guarantor claimed that he did not have adequate notice of trial date. We disagree.

First, it is clear that while the guarantor’s counsel withdrew, the attorney did so after notice of a calendar call and projection of a firm trial setting. See Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080(b). Second, the guarantor’s written consent to the attorney’s withdrawal made specific reference to the trial date. Thus, appellant had sufficient notice of trial.

Second, the money judgment entered was supported by competent and substantial evidence including depositions, testimony, and a court order enjoining a claimed settlement agreement. See Duval Util. Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 380 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980) (“substantial evidence” is that establishing a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.); Fleet Transp. Co. v. Mason, 188 So.2d 294, 296 (Fla.1966). Other points raised are without merit.

Accordingly, the final judgment under review is affirmed.

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