Capital Bank v. G & J Investments Corp., 83-3038
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1197,468 So.2d 534 |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-3038,83-3038 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1197 CAPITAL BANK, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. G & J INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel and David M. Wells, Miami, for appellant/cross appellee.
R. Stuart Huff, Coral Gables, for appellee/cross appellant.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Plaintiff, G & J Investments Corp. [G & J], commenced this action against Capital Bank on a complaint for conversion and breach of an oral contract. This appeal is brought from a judgment entered for plaintiff on a $35,600 jury verdict, plus interest and costs.
We agree with G & J that the facts essentially made for a jury question on the count alleging breach of contract. The critical factual question is whether the bank accepted an instrument presented for payment, thus becoming liable on the instrument, before receipt of a stop payment order from the depositor. See Tepper v. Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Association, 448 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
A new trial is required nevertheless because the court abused its discretion in permitting G & J to put on an expert witness, as part of its case-in-chief, who had not been disclosed to Capital Bank pursuant to the pretrial order. Without the expert testimony, G & J's proof as to the order of events--that acceptance of the instrument for payment preceded the stop payment acknowledgement--was based on circumstantial evidence. The expert witness, a handwriting analyst, concluded that the acceptance preceded the stop payment, based on microscopic examination of the checks using side lighting, reflected lighting, transmitted lighting, and spectrum reflective lighting. The record supports Capital Bank's contention that it was unprepared to cross examine the witness. Where a party is prejudiced by the testimony of an undisclosed expert, reversal is required. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981). The requisite prejudice in such cases does not depend upon proof that the testimony was adverse in nature, but only that the objecting party was surprised in fact. Id. at 1314. It is equally clear from the record that Capital Bank was without the ability to cure the prejudice, and that G & J's noncompliance with the pretrial order was not in good faith. We have repeatedly condemned such "ambush" tactics.
Since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scherer v. LABORERS'INTERN. UNION OF N. AMERICA
...Advanced Surgical Technologies, Inc. v. Automated Instruments, Inc., 777 F.2d 1504, 1507 (11th Cir.1985); Capital Bank v. G & J Inv. Corp., 468 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). A mere obligation to pay money may not be enforced by a conversion action ... and an action in tort is inappropr......
-
In re General Plastics Corp.
...Schimmel v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 464 So.2d 602, 605 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1985); Capital Bank v. G & J Invs. Corp., 468 So.2d 534, 535 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1985); Douglas v. Braman Porsche Audi, Inc., 451 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1984) (per curiam); Kee v. Nat......
-
Rosen v. Marlin
...identifiable cannot be the subject of conversion or theft allowing for the assessment of treble damages. Capital Bank v. G & J Investments Corporation, 468 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Plotch v. Gregory, 463 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Belford Trucking Co., Inc. v. Zagar, 243 So.2d 646 ......
-
Lugo v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.
...would require us to wink at an ambush tactic akin to those we have in the recent past roundly condemned. Capital Bank v. G & J Investments Corp., 468 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sobel v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 459 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Heimer v. Travelers Insurance Co., 400 So.2d......