Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Nammur

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Nammur

578 So. 2d 512, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3905, 1991 WL 65964

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2031

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 512 (Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Nammur) 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

Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Nammur, 578 So. 2d 512, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3905, 1991 WL 65964 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Roque, and Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc., appeal a final judgment in favor of plaintiff Alberto Nammur. We affirm for the following reasons. First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, under the circumstances, the notice of taking the deposition was reasonable, Stewart v. Mack, 86 So.2d 143 (Fla.1956): defendants received actual notice of the deposition, deponent was difficult to locate, deponent was planning to [513]*513leave the country, and deponent’s testimony was crucial to Nammur’s case. Cf. Bogan v. Kreski, 546 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Moreover, the subject of the deposition was uncomplicated and did not require extensive preparation. Nammur merely sought to establish that he paid certain funds to deponent and that deponent gave the funds to Sergio Roque. Second, Nammur adequately demonstrated that the witness was unavailable to testify at trial. See Christopher’s, Inc. v. Podolnick, 458 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 467 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1985); Fishman v. Liberty Assoc. Inc., 196 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. discharged, 205 So.2d 657 (Fla.1968). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Roque, and Sergio Roque Bail Bonds, Inc., appeal a final judgment in favor of plaintiff Alberto Nammur. We affirm for the following reasons. First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, under the circumstances, the notice of taking the deposition was reasonable, Stewart v. Mack, 86 So.2d 143 (Fla.1956): defendants received actual notice of the deposition, deponent was difficult to locate, deponent was planning to [513]*513leave the country, and deponent’s testimony was crucial to Nammur’s case. Cf. Bogan v. Kreski, 546 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Moreover, the subject of the deposition was uncomplicated and did not require extensive preparation. Nammur merely sought to establish that he paid certain funds to deponent and that deponent gave the funds to Sergio Roque. Second, Nammur adequately demonstrated that the witness was unavailable to testify at trial. See Christopher’s, Inc. v. Podolnick, 458 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review denied, 467 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1985); Fishman v. Liberty Assoc. Inc., 196 So.2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. discharged, 205 So.2d 657 (Fla.1968). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 512, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3905, 1991 WL 65964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sergio-roque-bail-bonds-inc-v-nammur-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack