LEONARD E. TREISTER AND DIANA TREISTER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CAPITAL BANK OF MIAMI, N. A., F/K/A NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in entering judgment for the plaintiff bank, as the affirmative defenses were not confessed and the evidence supported the bank's position.
Defendants appealed a judgment entered against them on a promissory note after a bench trial. Their affirmative defenses included failure to reply and…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hough v. Menses, 95 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
- Am. Salvage & Jobbing Co., Inc. v. Jacque Salomon, 295 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)