Anglada v. Sprague, 86-5671
| Decision Date | 29 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-5671,86-5671 |
| Citation | 822 F.2d 1035 |
| Parties | Jose ANGLADA and Isaura Anglada, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Wilma SPRAGUE, and Harry A. Wright, Defendants-Appellants, John Doe, Richard Roe, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
William S. Weisman, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Albert F. Tellechea, Ambrette & Tellechea, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before RONEY, Chief Judge, VANCE, Circuit Judge, and PITTMAN *, Senior District Judge.
In this diversity action for breach of contract, breach of guarantee and fraudulent misrepresentation, the defendants lost a jury verdict when they did not attend the trial and their counsel cross-examined plaintiffs' witnesses but put on no evidence and moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case. They contend first, that they should be granted a new trial because they were unable to testify in defense of this civil action because of pending state criminal charges against them, and second, that they were entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of the Florida Statute of Frauds and a failure of proof on actionable fraud and punitive damages. We affirm.
The plaintiffs, Jose Anglada and Isaura Anglada, sued Wilma Sprague and Harry A. Wright on two $25,000 Balloon Mortgage Notes in which they had invested and which had been executed by APT Mortgage Corporation ("APT") and Charme Properties. Sprague and Wright were officers of APT, received commissions on the investments brought to APT, and sent the APT investment literature to the Angladas, including a document entitled "Operating Procedure," which provided:
In addition, the security of the mortgage deed itself, the investor, through the promissory note, receives a guarantee from APT Mortgage as a Corporation, and from its officers, as individuals, that the investor will be paid as contracted (emphasis in original).
Both Sprague and Wright assured the Angladas that they personally guaranteed the mortgages. After making only one payment, APT defaulted on the promissory notes and filed for bankruptcy. In July 1985, the Angladas commenced this diversity action against Sprague and Wright.
On April 30, 1986, the State of Florida filed a criminal information against Sprague and Wright charging them with mortgage fraud and grand theft. Sprague and Wright then sought a stay of the civil action, pending the outcome of the state criminal proceedings, which was denied by the district judge. The Angladas produced evidence before the jury that included the personal guarantee made in the investment literature and the defendants' subsequent oral statements confirming that they personally backed the notes. The district court entered judgment on the jury's $54,042 verdict for the Angladas and denied defendants' motion for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Sprague and Wright contend that it was fundamentally unfair to compel them to choose between preserving their Fifth Amendment privilege and defending the civil action. The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination must be claimed, however, with respect to particular questions. A defendant's "blanket" refusal to answer all questions is unacceptable since it forces the reviewing court to speculate as to which questions would tend to incriminate. United States v. Malnik, 489 F.2d 682, 685 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 826, 95 S.Ct. 44, 42 L.Ed.2d 50 (1974). Here, Sprague and Wright did not attend the trial and simply asserted the unacceptable "blanket" refusal to testify.
In any event, the appellants overstate their dilemma. In United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1287 (5th Cir.1979), this Court rejected the same argument made here where there was no indication that the invocation of the Fifth Amendment would have necessarily resulted in an adverse judgment. In Hoover v. Knight, 678 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), this Court held that the failure to postpone an administrative hearing concerning a police officer pending resolution of related criminal charges did not violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination where there was no indication that undue weight was given to silence of the officer who refused to testify.
The appellants had other remedies available to them in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Blankenship
...263 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla., 23 F.3d 359, 364 (11th Cir.1994); Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.1987); Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir.1981); United Stat......
-
Oznemoc, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Com'n
...S.Ct. 1000, 1004 n. 11, 86 L.Ed. 1312 (1942). Commonwealth v. Simpson, 370 Mass. 119, 121, 345 N.E.2d 899 (1976). Cf. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035 (11th Cir.1987) (in order to invoke Fifth Amendment privilege, witness must take stand and assert privilege as to specific questions).7 Uni......
-
SEC v. Cross Financial Services, Inc.
...manifest." SEC v. Interlink Data Network of Los Angeles, Inc., 1993 WL 603274 (C.D.Cal.1993), p. 20 n. 97, citing Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.1987). As for defendant Siemens, he cites to no evidence in his Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact in Support of His ......
-
US v. Stoecklin
...it applies; he may not assert a blanket privilege. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1356 (11th Cir.1991); Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845, 852 (5th Cir.1969). Only when this process is followed can the Court determi......
-
Table of Cases
...Corp., 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989), 152 Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., 11 F.3d 957 (10th Cir. 1993), 40 Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035 (11th Cir. 1987), 154 Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 492 (D.N.J. 2014), 189 Animal Science Prods. v. Hebei We......
-
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
...of an IRS summons based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not a viable defense.”); Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (blanket refusal to answer all questions is unacceptable because it forces the reviewing court to speculate about which qu......
-
Table of Authorities
...World Industrial , 11 F.3d 957 (10th Cir. 1993) ............................................................... 46 Anglada v. Sprague , 822 F.2d 1035 (11th Cir. 1987) ......................................................... 146 In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation , 82 F.R.D. 364 (M.......
-
The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
...objection to the issuance of an IRS summons based on the Fifth Amendment privilege . . . is not a viable defense”); Anglada v. Sprague , 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (A defendant’s “blanket” refusal to answer all questions is unacceptable because it forces the reviewing court to spe......