Treister v. Capital Bank of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Treister v. Capital Bank of Miami

369 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17287

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 28, 1978

DocketNo. 78-527

StatusPublished

This text of 369 So. 2d 959 (Treister v. Capital 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

Treister v. Capital Bank of Miami, 369 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17287 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were defendants in the trial court to an action seeking a judgment on their promissory note. After a trial of the cause before the court without a jury, a judgment for the plaintiff bank was entered. This appeal followed.

The issues for trial arose from the defendants’ affirmative defenses. The first point on appeal urges that the affirmative defenses were confessed by the failure of the plaintiff to file a reply. See Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.110(e). We hold that no error has been shown inasmuch as the plaintiff’s evidence upon the issues raised by the affirmative defenses did not consist of avoidance, but rather of a denial of the allegations contained in the defenses. See American Salvage and Jobbing Company, Inc. v. Salomon, 295 So.2d 710 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

The second point on appeal, urging error because of the trial court’s failure to sustain the defendants’ second affirmative defense of payment, is without merit because the record reveals evidence which, if believed by the trial judge, would support the plaintiff bank’s position that monies received were properly applied. See Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla.1957).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were defendants in the trial court to an action seeking a judgment on their promissory note. After a trial of the cause before the court without a jury, a judgment for the plaintiff bank was entered. This appeal followed.

The issues for trial arose from the defendants’ affirmative defenses. The first point on appeal urges that the affirmative defenses were confessed by the failure of the plaintiff to file a reply. See Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.110(e). We hold that no error has been shown inasmuch as the plaintiff’s evidence upon the issues raised by the affirmative defenses did not consist of avoidance, but rather of a denial of the allegations contained in the defenses. See American Salvage and Jobbing Company, Inc. v. Salomon, 295 So.2d 710 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

The second point on appeal, urging error because of the trial court’s failure to sustain the defendants’ second affirmative defense of payment, is without merit because the record reveals evidence which, if believed by the trial judge, would support the plaintiff bank’s position that monies received were properly applied. See Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla.1957).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 959, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treister-v-capital-bank-of-miami-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack