MICHAEL A. LIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD KING, 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.
Light appealed a judgment requiring him to pay a promissory note to King. The trial court found that Light guaranteed a corporate loan and executed the note as evidence of that guarantee, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment because substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings.
The judgment was affirmed because substantial evidence in the record showed that Light, for good and valuable consideration, executed and delivered the promissory note; that he expected to repay it; that payment had not been made; and there was no proof of usury.
“The findings of fact of a trial judge upon a non-jury trial are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict.”
Establishes the standard of review and deference owed to trial court findings of fact.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing loaned $25,000 to Inter-American Development Corporation and in consideration received 50% of corporate profits, loan repayment with 6% interest,…
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 Guarantee cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant below, Michael A. Light, appeals a final judgment for the plaintiff. The parties will be referred to herein as they were in the trial court.
The plaintiff, Richard King, filed suit, contending that the defendant was indebted to him by virtue of a promissory note. Defendant answered, denying any indebtedness and by affirmative defense alleged usury. The defendant then filed a counterclaim, to which plaintiff replied by asserting that the promissory note did not evidence any indebtedness arising out of loans from plaintiff to the defendant, but that the note was evidence of a guarantee by the defendant of a loan from the plaintiff to a corporation known as Inter-American Development Corporation.
On appeal, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence, for that is the primary function of the trial judge. In re Brackett’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 375. It is within the province of the trier of facts to resolve conflicts in evidence. Watson v. Gallagher, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 472. It appears that the court found from the conflicting evidence that the plaintiff loaned Inter-American Development Corporation $25,000.00. In consideration of such loan the plaintiff would receive fifty percent of the profits of the corporation, the-*399return of the loan, together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the note, and twenty-five percent of the outstanding stock in said corporation. As a further consideration for the loan, the defendant agreed to guarantee the corporation’s repayment of the loan and gave the plaintiff a promissory note as evidence of this guarantee. Subsequently, Inter-American Development Corporation defaulted on its obligation to repay the loan and thereupon the defendant became liable on his guarantee.
We are not concerned with the statute of frauds, lack of consideration, or the parol evidence rule, as they were not properly raised as issues before the trial court. Babe, Inc. v. Baby’s Formula Service, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 795.
Appellant contends that there was no substantial competent evidence to justify the final decree in which the trial judge awarded a judgment for appellee on the promissory note.
In Highland Lakes, Inc. v. Art Present Real Estate, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 348, 349, the court stated:
* * * * * *
“The findings of fact of a trial judge upon a non-jury trial are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict. MacGregor v. Sachs, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 426; Bardee Corp. v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 268; LaFrance Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 330. Therefore, we will not reverse unless it is made to clearly appear that the judgment of the trial judge is erroneous or where his findings are manifestly against the weight of evidence or are contrary to the legal effect of the evidence. See Talbot v. Talbot, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 410.”
******
There is substantial evidence in the record to show that the defendant, for a good and valuable consideration, executed and delivered a promissory note to the plaintiff for $25,000.00; that he expected to repay the same, and that payment had not been made. The testimony of the defendant also reflects that plaintiff was not required to return the stock to him or to the corporation upon repayment of the money and there was no proof of usury.
It does not clearly appear that the judgment is erroneous or that the court’s findings were manifestly against the weight or contrary to the legal effect of the evidence. The judgment should therefore be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chaykin v. Kant, 327 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…lects that there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court. On appeal, an appellate court does not weigh the evidence, for that is the primary function of the trial judge. Light v. King, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 398; Bosem v. Bosem, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 758, 761. We do not agree with Chaykin’s contention that since the trial court found in its final judgment that the plaintiff had proved by competent evidence that there was a conspiracy between Samuel J. K…
-
Cunningham Drug Stores v. Pentland, 243 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 686. It is not the function of this court to retry the case here if we find that the conclusions of the trier of fact are supported by competent evidence. Ames v. Ames, Fla.App.1963, 153 So. 2d 737; Light v. King, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 398. In the instant case, a careful perusal of the record reveals sufficient evidence to support each of the items of damage awarded below, and conflicts in the evidence permitted the judge to correctly rule against lessor on the items he refused to awa…
-
Jules Sokoloff v. Corinto S.S. Co., 225 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…issue was raised as to the failure of consideration; no specific affirmative defense was pleaded and, without such, this matter is not properly raised as a point on appeal. See: Biro v. Geiser, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 461; Light v. King, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 398; Accord Jones v. Life Insurance Company of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 889. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Babe, Inc. v. Baby's Formula Serv., Inc., 165 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Martin v. Green, 134 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Highland Lakes, Inc. v. ART Present Real Est., Inc., 147 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. of Laura M. Brackett v. Brackett, 109 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Talbot v. Talbot, 104 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- LaFRANCE Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. Argenio, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- State of Fla. on the relation of Joseph B. Sidman & Jack P. Bluestein v. Fink, 147 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Watson v. Gallagher, 96 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)