MICHAEL A. PELLE, APPELLANT,
v.
DINERS CLUB, 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.
Michael Pelle appeals a judgment against him as president of Prudential Leasing Corporation for unpaid credit card charges on cards issued by Diners Club. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to allow Pelle to present his defense, violating due process.
The trial court erred by failing to grant the appellant an opportunity to present his case-in-chief, thereby violating his constitutional guarantee of due process. The judgment and order denying the motion for new trial are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
[1] A party is denied due process when the trial court fails to grant them an opportunity to present their case-in-chief.
[2] The constitutional guarantee of due process requires that the opportunity to be heard be full and fair.
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“It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires that the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.”
Establishes the core constitutional principle that due process requires a meaningful opportunity to present one's case in any legal proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePelle, as president of Prudential Leasing Corporation, applied for a Diners Club credit card on behalf of the company. Diners Club issued the card 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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant' seeks review of an adverse final judgment and order denying his motion for new trial.
Defendant, Michael A. Pelle, in his capacity as" president of Prudential Leasing Corporation," submitted a written application on behalf of the company to plaintiff, Diners Club, to obtain a credit card. Diners Club approved the application and issued a credit card to Prudential Leasing Corporation. Subsequently, plaintiff issued to Prudential Leasing two additional cards 1 to be used by Stephen Cardiff and Joseph Lubin for company business. Numerous charges, which Prudential refused to pay, were made on these cards. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant and others for the unpaid balance in the principal amount of $22,317.73 plus costs and attorney’s fees.
At the trial, after presenting testimony that the original had been lost, plaintiff submitted into evidence a copy of defendant’s application on the face of which appeared the following: “card holder assumes joint and several responsibility with company applicant”. Defendant claimed that the card has been lost or stolen, although he had never reported that fact to Diners Club. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a directed verdict which was denied. Plaintiff then rested it case. Some discussion followed and thereafter the trial court stated that it understood the positions of the parties and requested letter memoranda of law from both parties. On February 22, 1973 the court entered judgment for $22,317.73, plus costs and attorney’s fees, in favor of plaintiff. Defendant-appellant filed a motion for new trial and alleged as one of the grounds therefor that he had been deprived of his right to introduce evidence in defense of the complaint brought on behalf of plaintiff-appellee. The motion was denied and this appeal ensued.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in entering final judgment for appellee and denying his motion for new trial where appellant was given no opportunity to present his case-in-chief, resulting in a denial of due process. We -find merit in this contention. '
It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires that the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive. See Ryan’s Furniture Exchange, Inc. v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109, 162 So. 483 (1935).
Turning to the case at bar, we find the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant an opportunity to present his case-in-chief and, therefore, he was denied the protection afforded by the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.
Accordingly, the final judgment and order denying motion for new trial are reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
. All three cards bearing the same account number.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Rucker v. City OF Ocala & Crawford & Co., 684 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…. 4th DCA 1978) (“Fundamentally, due process requirements are satisfied if an opportunity for a meaningful hearing is provided prior to the final deprivation of a property interest.”), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1979); Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires that the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.”); accord State Plant Bd…
-
Julia v. Julia, 146 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…mental error.” Minaban v. Husted, 27 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107,108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). The opportunity to be heard must be “full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.” Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“[W]e find that the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant an opportunity to present his case-in-chief and, therefore, he was denied the protection afforded by the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.…
-
Smith v. Alisa Smith, 964 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…rantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires th[at] the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.’ ” Edelman v. Breed, 836 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (quoting Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)). Due process requires an opportunity to be heard. Sumner v. Sumner, 862 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The right is one afforded to both parties, and here such an opportunity was due Mr. Smith. “ ‘None of the elements inv…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ryan's Furniture Exch., Inc. v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1935)