Todorovich v. Wolfner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Todorovich v. Wolfner

555 So. 2d 372, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2453, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5815, 1989 WL 120870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 1989

DocketNo. 89-451

StatusPublished

This text of 555 So. 2d 372 (Todorovich v. Wolfner) 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

Todorovich v. Wolfner, 555 So. 2d 372, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2453, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5815, 1989 WL 120870 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an action for slander, the plaintiff, Jack Wolfner, placed before the jury as part of a damage claim, evidence of his good reputation in the community, and injury to that reputation. As a defense, Michael Todorovich sought to present evidence by three persons, each having experienced a single, unfavorable business dealing with the plaintiff. The three witnesses, by their own admissions, had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s reputation in the relevant community. The trial court excluded the evidence of the business transactions. From an adverse judgment Todorovich appeals, contending that the business dealings evidence should have been admitted. We affirm.

Evidence of specific instances of conduct may be admitted where character, or a trait of character, is an element of a claim or defense, section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (1987), however, a challenge to a party’s reputation must be based on more than a personal opinion or a fleeting encounter. See Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). Wolf-ner’s damage claim did not involve a character issue.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an action for slander, the plaintiff, Jack Wolfner, placed before the jury as part of a damage claim, evidence of his good reputation in the community, and injury to that reputation. As a defense, Michael Todorovich sought to present evidence by three persons, each having experienced a single, unfavorable business dealing with the plaintiff. The three witnesses, by their own admissions, had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s reputation in the relevant community. The trial court excluded the evidence of the business transactions. From an adverse judgment Todorovich appeals, contending that the business dealings evidence should have been admitted. We affirm.

Evidence of specific instances of conduct may be admitted where character, or a trait of character, is an element of a claim or defense, section 90.405(2), Florida Statutes (1987), however, a challenge to a party’s reputation must be based on more than a personal opinion or a fleeting encounter. See Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). Wolf-ner’s damage claim did not involve a character issue.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 So. 2d 372, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2453, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5815, 1989 WL 120870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todorovich-v-wolfner-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack