SUN BANK OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF VINCENT VECCHIO, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
GORDON OLIVER, 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.
Sun Bank, as personal representative of Vincent Vecchio's estate, appealed an adverse judgment in a promissory note action against Gordon Oliver. The Fourth District reversed because the trial court committed reversible error by allowing testimony that violated the best evidence rule.
The trial court erred in admitting the bookkeeper's testimony because it violated the best evidence rule; the original company records should have been introduced instead of the witness's substitutionary testimony regarding her findings. The error was not harmless because the evidence was sketchy and circumstantial, creating doubt whether the court would have ruled the same way absent Ms. Rogers' statement.
[1] The best evidence rule requires that if the original evidence is available, no evidence should be received which is merely substitutionary in nature.
[2] Evidence which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of information is to be excluded.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The best evidence rule requires that if the original evidence is available, no evidence should be received which is merely substitutionary in nature.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that guided the court's analysis of the reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSun Bank sued Oliver on a promissory note from Oliver to Vecchio for $32,212.58. Oliver raised affective defenses including failure of consideration, …
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 Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
Sun Bank of St. Lucie County, as personal representative of the Estate of Vincent Vecchio, appeals from an adverse final judgment. We reverse for the reasons which are set forth herein.
In its representative capacity, Sun Bank sued Gordon Oliver on a promissory note from Oliver to Vecchio in the amount of $32,212.58. In his answer, Oliver raised affirmative defenses of failure of consideration, set-off of money due from Vecchio to Oliver, payment in full, and payment in part. The set-off defense was stricken by the trial court but Oliver filed an amended answer raising alteration of the note as an additional defense. The allegations of the affirmative defenses were denied.
At the non-jury trial, Sun Bank established a prima facie case, by introducing the note into evidence, and then rested. Oliver called several witnesses, but our decision to reverse rests on the testimony of one witness, Glenda Rogers. Ms. Rogers was the bookkeeper for Fort Pierce Tomato Growers, a business in which both Vecchio and Oliver participated. Over an objection by Sun Bank on best evidence grounds, she was permitted to testify that she had reviewed the deposit slips, books, and records of the company and had failed to find any evidence to indicate that Oliver had received credit for any money for which he had signed a note.
We believe the best evidence objection was well taken and find that the admission of the testimony was reversible error. The best evidence rule requires that if the original evidence is available, no evi dence should be received which is merely substitutionary in nature. Evidence which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of information is to be excluded. See Liddon v. Board of Public Instruction, 128 Fla. 838, 175 So. 806 (1937); 23 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses § 197. The best evidence in the instant case would be the company records and only after their admission would Ms. Rogers’ testimony as to her findings be proper. Moreover, since the only evidence presented herein is both sketchy and circumstantial, there is some doubt as to whether the court would have ruled as it did absent Ms. Rogers’ statement. Thus, the error in allowing the testimony may not be classified as harmless.
For the above-stated reasons, the judgment herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LETTS, C. J., and HERSEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bryant Michael Eubanks, 609 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…fense.” It thereafter rendered the order appealed herein. The best evidence rule requires that if original evidence is available, then no evidence should be received which is merely substitutionary in nature. Sun Bank of St. Lucie County v. Oliver, 403 So. 2d 583, 583-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In other words, evidence which itself indicates the existence of a more original source of information is to be excluded. Id. The best evidence rule is not applicable if the writing is not offered to prove the truth of…
-
Russell v. State, 844 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ly authorized alternative is available, no evidence should be received which is merely “substitution-ary in nature.” Liddon v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Jackson County, 128 Fla. 838, 175 So. 806, 808 (1937); Sun Bank of St. Lucie County v. Oliver, 403 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Thus, evidence which indicates that a more original source of information is available should be excluded. Id. In short, unless otherwise excused by the evidence code, the original must be produced unless it is shown to be…
-
McKEEHAN v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…y authorized alternative 1 is available, no evidence should be received which is merely “substitutionary in nature.” Liddon v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction for Jackson County, 128 Fla. 838, 175 So. 806, 808 (1937); Sun Bank of St. Lucie County v. Oliver, 403 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Thus, evidence which indicates that a more original source of information is available should be excluded. Id. In short, unless otherwise excused by the evidence code, the original must be produced unless it is shown to be…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Liddon v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Jackson Cnty., 128 Fla. 838 (Fla. 1937)