Stefan v. Miami National Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stefan v. Miami National Bank

475 So. 2d 264, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15520

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1985

DocketNo. 83-2573

StatusPublished

This text of 475 So. 2d 264 (Stefan v. Miami National Bank) 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

Stefan v. Miami National Bank, 475 So. 2d 264, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15520 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the points raised by the appeal and cross appeal in this case and find that no basis has been shown to upset the final judgment and that little would be served by an extensive opinion. There was plainly substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings on all the points complained of, and we can discern no abuse of discretion or misapplication of law which occurred below. We are therefore led to a required affirmance based on the principles of law stated in Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d 213, 215-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cheezem Development Corp. v. Intracoastal Sales & Service, 336 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The final judgment under review is in all respects, as to both the main appeal and cross appeal,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the points raised by the appeal and cross appeal in this case and find that no basis has been shown to upset the final judgment and that little would be served by an extensive opinion. There was plainly substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings on all the points complained of, and we can discern no abuse of discretion or misapplication of law which occurred below. We are therefore led to a required affirmance based on the principles of law stated in Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d 213, 215-16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cheezem Development Corp. v. Intracoastal Sales & Service, 336 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The final judgment under review is in all respects, as to both the main appeal and cross appeal,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 264, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stefan-v-miami-national-bank-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack