JEAN SCHANKER AND SAMUEL SCHANKER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUBIN WOLLOWICK, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's judgment finding appellants liable on a promissory note. The appellants' defense of payment was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact.
No, the trial court did not err. There was sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and the appellate court is not authorized to interfere with the trial court's findings of fact when there is substantial evidence to support them.
“The defense urged by the appellants was payment of the note. This was in the nature of an affirmative defense and required them to sustain the burden of proof.”
Establishes the legal nature of the defense and the burden of proof.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were sued by the appellee on a promissory note. The appellants claimed they had already paid the note, which was an affirmative defense. Th…
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 Substantial Evidence Standard On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants seek review of a final judgment, rendered subsequent to a non-jury trial, adjudicating that the appellants were liable on a certain promissory note •given to the appellee.
The defense urged by the appellants was payment of the note. This was in the nature of an affirmative defense and required them to sustain the burden of proof. Bacon v. Green, 36 Fla. 325, 18 So. 870; Heitman v. Davis, 127 Fla. 1, 172 So. 705; Hough v. Menses, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 410; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, § 77 The evidence adduced by the parties was conflicting on the question of payment; the appellee asserting that the obligation had not been paid; the appellants asserting that it had. The trier of the facts resolved these conflicts in the evidence in favor of the appellee, and the judgment arriving in this court with a presumption of correctness [Dade Engineering & Construction Co. v. D’Amato, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 627; Bardee Corporation v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 268], this court is not authorized to interfere with the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment. Krohne v. Orlando Farming Corporation, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 399; Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 892. There being evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment, it is the duty of this court to affirm the actions of the trial court. Chakford v. Strum, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 419; First State Mortgage Company v. Steele Construction Company, Fla.App.1959, 111 So.2d 682. Therefore, the final judgment is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milenoff v. Paul Szilard Prods., Inc., 158 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of Schanker v. Wollowick, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 509.…
-
Tucker v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 199 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…lished that the findings made by a judge in a non-jury trial are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed upon appeal, so long as there is substantial competent evidence to support them, Schanker v. Wollowick, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 509, as there was herein. No reversible error having been found in the' determination that there was no legally binding contract for the performance of a second Seder, it follows that the defendant breached no legal duty to Tucker in its actions in can…
-
Buchman v. Hirsch, 334 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of the rule in Schanker v. Wollowick, Fla.App.1962, 143 So. 2d 509, and Jovanovich v. Aero-Tech, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 555.…
Authorities Cited
- Hough v. Menses, 95 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
- Bacon v. Louen N. Green, 36 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1895)
- Hervey S. Ross v. Fla. SUN Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Krohne v. Orlando Farming Corp., 102 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Am. Cont'l Inv., Inc. v. Borofsky, 87 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1956)
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Heitman v. Davis, 127 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1937)
- First State Mortg. Co. v. Steele Constr. Co., 111 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Dade Eng'g & Constr. Co., Inc. v. D'Amato, 108 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)