SANFORD KAY AND REBECCA KAY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARILYN KAY FERNANDEZ, AS ADMINISTRATRIX CTA OF THE ESTATE OF SAM KAY, DECEASED, 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 judge did not err in denying an adjournment for a court reporter, in failing to apply the defense of laches, or in weighing the evidence.
Plaintiff sued defendants on four promissory notes. The trial proceeded without a court reporter, and the judge later approved a statement of proceedi…
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.
This appeal is from a final judgment for the plaintiff on four promissory notes payable by the defendants to the plaintiff’s deceased. The judgment was entered after a nonjury trial at which no court reporter was present. Thereafter, pursuant to Fla. R.App.P. 9.200(b)(3), the trial judge “settled and approved” a statement of the evidence and proceedings.
The defendants’ first point on appeal alleges error because the trial judge denied an adjournment after trial had begun when the defendants requested a recess for the purpose of then procuring a court reporter. No reversible error is shown. See Cleary Bros. Const. Co. v. Phelps, 156 Fla. 461, 24 So. 2d 51 (1945); and cf. City of Miami v. Brown, 256 So. 2d 78 (Fla.3d DCA. 1971).
The second point urges that the trial judge erred in failing to hold that as a matter of law the delays in bringing suit constituted a defense of laches. Laches being an equitable defense, the appropriate defense for a simple running of time in this instance is the applicable statute of limitations. See the wording of Section 95.11(1), Florida Statutes, as it appears in 1973 and prior thereto.1 Nothing other than delay in bringing suit appears on this record. See Tower v. Moskowitz, 262 So. 2d 276 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).
The third point urges error in the trial judge’s finding on the weight of the evidence. This point does not show error. See Federated Department Stores v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
. See also the revised provisions in Section 95.11(2)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes (1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldredge v. E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc., 452 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…150 So. 242 (1933). We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the plaintiff, Aldredge, for the balance due on the note, plus interest. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. SHARP, J., dissents, without opinion. . Kay v. Fernandez, 373 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Tower v. Moskowitz, 262 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Cleary Bros. Constr. Co. v. Phelps, 156 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1945)
- Tolliver v. Loftin, 156 Fla. 461 (Fla. 1945)
- City OF Miami v. Brown, 256 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)