BERNARD SOLOWAY AND JUDY PAGAN SOLOWAY, D/B/A JUDY B. MARTIN ASSOCIATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD R. BENSON AND FRANCES J. BENSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Appellants sued to foreclose a mortgage on defendants' property. The trial court granted a directed verdict against appellants after sustaining an objection to redirect examination testimony about appellants' ownership of the note and mortgage. The court reversed, holding that appellants were entitled to present testimony on redirect examination to explain facts brought out on cross-examination.
The trial court erred in sustaining the objection and granting the directed verdict. When a party cross-examines a witness on specific facts, the opposing party is entitled on redirect examination to present testimony that qualifies, explains, or limits those facts. Appellants were entitled to present testimony regarding their ownership of the note and mortgage on redirect examination.
[1] A party is entitled to present testimony on redirect examination that qualifies, explains, or limits facts brought out by the opposing party on cross-examination.
[2] A trial court errs by sustaining an objection to redirect examination testimony that directly addresses issues raised during cross-examination.
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“During cross-examination, appellees questioned one of the appellants concerning numerous specific facts on how he obtained the note and mortgage. Therefore, on redirect examination appellants were entitled to present testimony which would qualify, explain or limit facts brought out by appellees on cross-examination.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that redirect examination is available to address facts brought out on cross-examination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to foreclose a mortgage on appellees' real property. At a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to introduce a copy of the note 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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants/plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s granting a directed verdict and ruling that appellees/defendants are entitled to final judgment. We reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Appellants sued appellees to foreclose their mortgage on appellees’ real property. At the nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of a copy of the note and mortgage in place of the original.
During the trial, appellees cross-examined one of appellants on the specific facts underlying the acquisition of the note and mortgage from appellees. However, on redirect examination appellees objected to the question of whether appellant was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. The court sustained the objection.
At the close of appellants’ case, appellees moved for a directed verdict on the ground that appellants failed to prove they owned the note and mortgage. (Appellees should have moved for involuntary dismissal because this was a nonjury trial, but the same legal principles apply to both motions. In re Estate of McCoy v. Milton, 445 So. 2d 680, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). The court granted the motion and rendered final judgment in favor of appellees. On appeal, appellants argue that the court should have allowed them to present testimony that they own and hold the note and mortgage. We agree.
During cross-examination, appellees questioned one of the appellants concerning numerous specific facts on how he obtained the note and mortgage. Therefore, on redirect examination appellants were entitled to present testimony which would qualify, explain or limit facts brought out by appellees on cross-examination. Tompkins v. State, 502 So. 2d 415, 419 (Fla.1986); cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 3277, 97 L.Ed.2d. 781 (1987); Morgan v. State, 520 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Dowell v. State, 516 So. 2d 271, 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1988). In this case, the trial court should have allowed appellants to present testimony regarding their ownership of the note and mortgage on redirect examination. We therefore reverse the final judgment entered on the directed verdict and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tompkins v. State, 502 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1986)
- Harris v. Zeesman, 445 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Morgan v. State, 520 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Markham William Dowell v. State, 516 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)