G. MILTON STARNES, A/K/A G.M. STARNES, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCILLE STARNES, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1996-08-20
No. 95-4519
BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur., BENTON, J., concurs in result.
680 So. 2d 572 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1996)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in awarding certain personal property and in calculating the balance of a loan. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant appealed a final judgment entered in favor of Appellee. The appeal concerned a counterclaim for replevin and the balance of a loan. The tria…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment of the trial court in Appellee’s favor. Appellant attacks the judgment below, raising five issues. We reverse and remand on two of the issues raised and affirm the remaining issues without comment.

Appellant correctly argues that the trial court erred as to his counterclaim of replevin by awarding Appellee a drop-leaf table and all of Appellant’s school books, childhood toys and memorabilia. We find no competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the award of this personal property to Appellee; therefore, we reverse and remand for further consideration.

We also reverse the trial court’s order concerning payment of the balance of a loan made by Appellee to Appellant. Although the trial court did not err in finding Appellant responsible for the balance, it did err in determining the amount of that balance. The evidence at trial showed that Appellant made payments at an interest rate higher than the 5% rate stipulated to by the parties. On remand, the trial court shall determine the total number and amount of payments made by Appellant at this higher interest rate and reduce the amount of principal outstanding, if appropriate.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., concurs in result.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw