MITCHELL BERLANT, A/K/A MITCHELL T. BERLANT, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, 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 a final judgment cannot be entered based solely on a nontestifying bank officer's affidavit when the amount owed is unliquidated and disputed.
Parties settled a dispute via stipulation requiring an accounting of mortgage payments. National Bank of Florida sought a final judgment against Berla…
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 Unliquidated Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties to this litigation had settled their dispute by way of a court-approved stipulation. The stipulation called for Ber-lant to deposit $10,000 in an account with the National Bank of Florida and to assign as additional collateral certain mortgages he owned. Because payments for several of the assigned mortgages were made to National while the remainder of the assigned mortgage payments were made directly to Berlant, the stipulation afforded both National and Berlant a right to an accounting “for all monies received by each from the mortgagees.” Various procedural skirmishes ensued which culminated in National’s motion seeking a final judgment against Berlant. In support of its motion, National filed the affidavit of a bank officer as to the amount Berlant owed.
Berlant correctly contends that it was error for the trial court to enter a final judgment against him where the amount of his indebtedness was based solely on an affidavit submitted by a nontestifying bank officer. National presented no other evidence to support the proposed figure. The amount in controversy was clearly unliqui-dated and was disputed by Berlant, thereby necessitating an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 466 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Surratt v. Hodges, 389 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. Because the record of the hearings before the trial court contains only the arguments of counsel, we are unable to address the propriety of the trial court’s order awarding National certain interpleader costs.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marbella Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. MY Lawn Serv., Inc., 12 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…n the non-breaching party. Indian River Colony Club, Inc. v. Schopke [*809] Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., 619 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Generally, proof of performance costs necessitates an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Berlant v. Nat’l Bank of Fla., 527 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, although the contract price could be easily ascertained, My Lavra failed to produce evidence of its costs and expenses in performing the five-year contract. This evidence is necessary to determine My Lavra’s lost profit.…
Authorities Cited
- Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 466 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Surratt v. Hodges, 389 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)