MICHAEL H. WEISSER, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1978-12-19
No. 77-2643
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HUB-BART and KEHOE, JJ.
365 So. 2d 1034 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The FDIC, as liquidator of Franklin National Bank, sued Michael Weisser to collect on a promissory note and guarantee agreement. The Florida appellate court reversed the judgment for the FDIC, holding that the FDIC failed to establish its standing to sue because it did not properly prove its appointment as liquidator under Florida Statutes Section 92.10.


Holding

The FDIC lacked standing to sue because it failed to adequately prove its appointment as liquidator. A bare allegation in the complaint that the FDIC was appointed as liquidator was insufficient; the FDIC was required to introduce admissible evidence of its appointment in compliance with Florida Statutes Section 92.10.


Headnotes

[1] A plaintiff must sufficiently allege its standing to sue in its complaint.

[2] An unsupported allegation in a complaint is insufficient to establish standing.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“We find this allegation to be insufficient to give the F.D.I.C. standing.”

Establishes that a bare allegation in the complaint is insufficient to prove standing; the FDIC must introduce admissible evidence of its appointment.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 1969, Weisser executed a $60,000 promissory note with Franklin National Bank. He subsequently executed a guarantee of a $20,000 note for M.H.W., Lt…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-debtor, Michael Weisser, appeals a final judgment for $42,875.83 entered in favor of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as liquidator of the Franklin National Bank in an action to collect the balance due on a promissory note and guarantee agreement.

In 1969 Michael Weisser executed a promissory note in the amount of $60,000 in favor of Franklin National Bank. Subsequently, he executed a guarantee of a $20,-000 note of M.H.W., Ltd., and on May 11, 1970 further executed an agreement reflecting that there was due and owing Franklin National Bank $52,000 under the promissory note and guarantee. The agreement provided for a schedule of payments to satisfy this indebtedness. Sometime in 1973 Weisser defaulted on these payments. In 1975 Franklin National Bank went into liquidation and was taken over by the plaintiff-appellee, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.) as liquidator. Thereafter, the F.D.I.C. filed the instant suit to collect the outstanding principal balance due under the note and guarantee plus interest, late charges, and attorney’s fees as provided by these instruments. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial and Weisser primarily defended on the grounds that the F.D.I.C. lacked standing to sue and there was a novation between the parties. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the F.D.I.C. for $42,875. Weisser appeals.

For his first point on appeal Weisser contends that the F.D.I.C. did not have standing to sue him where the record was devoid of any evidence showing that the F.D.I.C. was a party to or in privy with any of the subject instruments and where the F.D.I.C. failed to meet its burden of proof under Section 92.10, Florida Statutes (1975). We find this point well taken.

At the trial the F.D.I.C. attempted to introduce into evidence a copy of the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to show that it was appointed as liquidator of the assets of Franklin National Bank. Weisser objected on the ground that the order did not comply with Section 92.10, Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court sustained the objection and the order was not admitted. The court, therefore, could not consider this order. See Bosem v. A.R.A. Corp., 350 So. 2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

With respect to the issue of standing, all that is contained in the record is the bare, unsupported allegation in the complaint that “Franklin National Bank went into liquidation and was taken over by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for the purpose of liquidation and is now being liquidated”. We find this allegation to be insufficient to give the F.D.I.C. standing. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend so that the F.D.I.C. may have the opportunity to sufficiently allege its standing to sue Weisser. Reversed and remanded with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Pointe Sanibel Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …nsaction with no right to recover, the appellant does not, and could not, dispute the indispensability of establishing that it actually was the entity to which the cause of action in question had been assigned. Weisser v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 365 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Mansell v. Foss, 343 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Hertz International, Ltd. v. Richardson, 317 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1976); see, Grandin Industries, Inc. v. Florida Nat. Bank at Orlando…
  • Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Weisser, 391 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …d established its standing to sue by the supporting documents appended to its second amended complaint. For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. . Weisser v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 365 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw