Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 55345
| Citation | 377 So.2d 1150,28 U.C.C.Rep.Serv. 1155 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 55345,55345 |
| Parties | 28 UCC Rep.Serv. 1155 Albert V. APPLEGATE et ux., Petitioners, v. The BARNETT BANK OF TALLAHASSEE, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Marion D. Lamb, Jr., and Guyte McCord III of Spector & Tunnicliff, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
Julius F. Parker, Jr. of Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark & Skelding, Tallahassee, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review the decision of the district court of appeal in Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Applegate, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), which directly conflicts with Okun v. Stuart House Condominium Association, Inc., 362 So.2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Moore v. Sky Realty, Inc., 339 So.2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 336 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Buckalew v. Buckalew, 115 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); and Bolick v. Sperry, 88 So.2d 495 (Fla.1956). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
On January 26, 1974, Albert V. and Phyllis J. Applegate entered into an agreement with Lewis C. Schacht. Among other things, the agreement provided for the installment sale of 550 head of cattle to Schacht. The Applegates filed suit against Schacht on February 20, 1976. The Barnett Bank of Tallahassee was joined as a defendant due to its December 28, 1975, security agreement with Schacht and related UCC financing statement. In late April, 1976, after the filing of the suit, Schacht sold at least 140 of the cattle and paid Barnett Bank the sale proceeds of $16,233.36 and $6,496.75.
After a nonjury trial without a reporter, the circuit court found that the Applegates' lien on the cattle was superior to Barnett Bank's lien. The court also found and ordered the proceeds of the April sales of the cattle to be held in trust for the Applegates to the extent of any deficiency on the sum still due them. Barnett Bank appealed but did not bring forward any substitute for a trial transcript. See Fla.R.App.P. 3.6(h) and 9.200(b)(3).
The First District Court of Appeal ruled that the Applegates had lost any priority to the proceeds of the sale of the cattle because their financing statement did not cover proceeds from a sale of collateral and they failed to perfect their security interest within ten days after the sales as required by Section 679.306(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). The district court of appeal concluded that "the (trial) court's finding that a constructive trust arose by operation of law is not supported by the facts." The appellate court reversed the imposition of a constructive trust. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee v. Applegate at 7, 8.
In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. The Applegates correctly point to the lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute as fatally flawing the appellate court's ruling. The written final judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the decision of the trial court is primarily what matters, not the reasoning used.
Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it. E. g., 3 Fla.Jur.2d § 296; In Re Yohn's Estate, 238 So.2d 290 (Fla.1970); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So.2d 21 (4th DCA Fla. 1967); Escarra v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 131 So.2d 483 (Fla.1961). However, a misconception by the trial judge of a controlling principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E. g., Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So.2d 452 (3d DCA Fla. 1975); Green v. Putnam, 93 So.2d 378 (Fla.1957); Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (1937).
The trial court's imposition of a constructive trust could well be supported by evidence adduced at trial but not stated in the judge's order or otherwise apparent in the incomplete record on appeal. The question raised by Barnett Bank clearly involves underlying issues of fact. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...In our view, the record here supports affirmance on a theory different than that adopted by the trial court. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) ("The written final judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the decision of the trial cou......
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.
...court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict, not on appellees to show that the ruling was correct. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Canto v. J.B. Ivey and Co., 595 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Persuaded, as we are, that the trial court's de......
-
Hicks v. State
...must reverse, and he cannot meet that burden without overcoming all bases for affirmance. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) ; see also State v. Pitts , 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (noting that appellate courts should affirm when th......
-
Marks v. Delcastillo
...that the testimony now in issue was not in fact objected to. Haist v. Scarp, 366 So.2d 402 (Fla.1978); see Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). There is no question that such a failure to object to evidence at the trial precludes appellate review of the propr......
-
Do You Need A Hearing Transcript To Appeal A Case?
...important for appeals in Florida? In 1979, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion, Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979), which stated that when a trial court is appealed, the trial court's decision carries a presumption of correctness and the party appe......
-
Tipping the ole tipsy coachman over in his grave: an inequity of appellate review.
...v. Dobson, No. 1D05-4326, LEXIS 956, at * 1-* 2 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. Jan. 26, 2007) (per curiam); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (citing In re Yohn's Estate, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970); Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1967); Escarr......
-
Chapter 19-3 Preservation of Error
...the "responsibility and duty" to provide the appellate court with a sufficient record)).[10] Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979); see also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 2010) ("Proper preservation of error for appellate review generally require......
-
The appellate decision-making process.
...Goldschmidt. (28) See, e.g., Royster v. State, 643 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1994). (29) See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. (30) For example, the district courts sit in three-judge panels and the Florida Supreme Court has seven justices. When district court......
-
The trial is the beginning of your appeal.
...den. 2002; Seaboard Airline Railroad Company v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1956). (4) Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979); Lannon v. Foley, 914 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (5) Tolbert v. State, 922 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2006)(failure to obtain c......