EVE PENCE, APPELLANT,
v.
RUTH E. ENNIS, 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.
This case involves a dispute over the purchase price of a business. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision due to the absence of a trial transcript, making it impossible to review the factual findings.
No, an appellate court cannot review a trial court's factual findings without a proper record of the trial proceedings.
“The record on appeal does not contain a transcript or narrative report of the trial. We must, therefore, affirm.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for the appellate court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuth E. Ennis purchased a business from Eve Pence for $3,000, including furniture, fixtures, and inventory. Ennis executed a $2,000 chattel mortgage a…
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 Chattel Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Ruth E. Ennis purchased a business from Eve Pence for $3,000. The purchase price included furniture, fixtures and inventory. A purcháse money chattel mortgage and note was executed by the purchaser in the amount of $2,000, payable $1,000 each year for two years. The mortgage was made subject to a lease of the premises in which the business was located. No payments were made, and upon default, Eve Pence elected to disregard the mortgage and to sue at law on the note.
The matter came on for trial without a jury. The court found that the purchaser was entitled to a credit of $500 for a unit of the equipment which was offered to be returned, and was entitled to other credits, leaving a balance due of $750. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript or narrative report of the trial. We must, therefore, affirm. See East Coast Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 68; Widmeyer v. Olds, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So.2d 825; Pan American Metal Products Co., Inc. v. Healy, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 96, certiorari dismissed without opinion, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 651; and Insana v. Hasty, Fla. App.1959, 109 So.2d 791.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1995)…la. 5th DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.), and review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 1422, 79 L.Ed.2d 747, and cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1107, 104 S.Ct. 1612, 80 L.Ed.2d 141 (1984); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); see also Day v. Day, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 4,126 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989). Attwood has filed no less than forty-five eases with this Court in the past year. Moreover, At…
-
Irve Gladstone v. Smith, 729 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…e also Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (finding that the appellant “abused his pro se right of access to our court so as to interfere with the effective administration of justice”); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (holding that where the pro se appel [*1005] lant brings repetitive vexatious claims, “the remainder of the litigants should not have their causes interfered 'with due to the unreasonable amount of time and effort which must…
-
Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ted resources”). Lussy v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 828 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla.2002); see Slizyk v. Smilack, 734 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Shotkin v. Cohen, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); see also Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F. 2d 19 (2d Cir.1986). In Safir the court stated: [I]n determining whether or not to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts, [a court] should consider the following f…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Athas S. Curtis v. Simon, 138 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Insana v. Hasty, 109 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Widmeyer v. Olds, 144 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- E. Coast DRY Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Rose v. U. S. Foundry & Mfg. Co., 143 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1962)
- Pan Am. Metal Prods., Inc. v. Healy, 143 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1962)
- Parrish v. State, 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)