CARMINE MARRONE, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI NATIONAL BANK, 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.
Carmine Marrone appealed a judgment dismissing his breach of contract claim against Miami National Bank regarding a mortgage participation certificate. The trial court found the bank had not received payment on the underlying note and mortgage from the obligor corporation, and therefore owed Marrone nothing under the certificate. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence.
The trial court's finding that Miami National Bank had not received payment on the note and mortgage was supported by competent and substantial evidence, and therefore the bank was not required to make any payment to Marrone under the participation certificate.
[1] A trial court's findings in a non-jury case are presumed correct and will not be disturbed unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.
[2] In a non-jury case, the trial court has the duty to reconcile conflicts in testimony, judge witness credibility, and determine the weight of the evidence.
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“In a non-jury case, it is the trial court's duty to reconcile conflicts in the testimony, to judge the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight of the evidence presented.”
Establishes the standard of review and the trial court's role in fact-finding in non-jury cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarrone claimed to own a mortgage participation certificate entitling him to payment from Miami National Bank when the bank received payment on a note…
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 Appellate Deference To Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff/appellant, Carmine Marrone, appeals from an adverse final judgment entered following the non-jury trial of his breach of contract action against defendant/appellee, Miami National Bank. Mar-rone seeks to recover upon a mortgage participation certificate which he claims to have acquired in connection with a large note and mortgage given to the bank by 13499 Corporation. The complaint alleges that pursuant to the certificate, Marrone is entitled to collect payment (on the certificate) from the bank because the bank has received payment in full from the mortgagor/corporation. The bank contends that it has not received payment on the note and mortgage, and therefore it is not required to make any payments to Marrone. At trial, both parties presented evidence in support of their positions. The court found:
As to the breach of contract claims, this Court ... finds that Miami National Bank has not received payment on the ... note and mortgage from 13499 Corporation and, additionally, that no other event has occurred which would require Miami National Bank to make any payment to Plaintiff pursuant to Plaintiff’s mortgage participation certificate.
In a non-jury case, it is the trial court’s duty to reconcile conflicts in the testimony, to judge the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight of the evidence presented. Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). This court will not disturb the trial court’s findings, which are presumed correct, unless they are totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). There is competent, substantial evidence in the record of the instant case to support the trial court’s finding that the underlying mortgage upon which Mar-rone’s claim is predicated was never paid. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Marrone’s claim for payment from Miami National Bank must fail.
With respect to Marrone’s appeal from various other orders entered by the trial court, we have carefully considered all of the additional points raised in light of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel. We conclude that no reversible error has been demonstrated.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Gentile-Youd v. In re Guardianship OF Harriet Rudnick, 632 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ary Guardian of the Person of Harriet Rudnick. We affirm. “This court will not disturb the trial court’s findings, which are presumed correct, unless they are totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.” Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see also Randy Int'l Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Perry Rudnick is best suited to be his wif…
-
Alina Portuondo v. Portuondo, 570 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…d to support the trial court’s judgment that the husband was entitled to a special equity. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976) (appellate court has right to reject incredible and improbable testimony or evidence); Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (appellate court will not disturb trial court’s findings unless they are totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence); Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (no competent evidence to support trial court’s…
-
Dreyfuss v. Jacques F. Dreyfuss & Brickell Earth Station, Inc., 701 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…a fundamental principle of appellate review that findings made by a lower court are presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal unless these findings are totally unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Marrone v. Miami Nat’l. Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Randy Int’l, Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Here, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that there was no meeting of the minds on the essential elements n…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. Am. Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)