Casa de Alabanza v. Bus Service Inc.
| Citation | 669 So.2d 338 |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2405,95-2405 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D621 Iglesia CASA DE ALABANZA, Appellant, v. BUS SERVICE, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Thomas W. Spencer, Judge.
Tauler & Shearin and Elena C. Tauler, Miami, and Robert L. Shearin, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Alan Hochman and Jay M. Levy, Miami, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.
Iglesia Casa de Alabanza (hereinafter "Alabanza"), the defendant below, appeals a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Bus Service Incorporated (hereinafter "Bus Service") in a breach of contract action. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901-559.9221, Florida Statutes (1995). Additionally, Alabanza argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of its representative at trial. We agree and reverse the final judgment of the trial court based upon both grounds raised by the appellant.
First, the trial court erred by failing to take judicial notice of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (hereinafter "the Act"). Bus Service's complaint alleged that the appellant had breached its contract with Bus Service by not paying for the repairs performed on Alabanza's bus by the appellee. In Alabanza's responsive pleadings, which contained an answer and counter-claim, the appellant contended that Bus Service breached its contract with appellant and, furthermore, was negligent in performing the repairs to Alabanza's bus. Accordingly, the parties' pleadings demonstrate that the Act is applicable and, therefore, the trial court was in error when it denied Alabanza's request to take judicial notice of the Act. Barnett Bank v. Jacksonville Nat'l Bank, 457 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
The trial court also erred in prohibiting a representative of the appellant, which is a church and, accordingly, should be treated as a corporate entity, from testifying on behalf of Alabanza. Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Hardee County, 184 So.2d 438, 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Although the appellant failed to list the name of any witness in particular that it intended to call at trial in the pre-trial witness catalog, Alabanza did indicate in its witness list that it would be calling "[a]ny and all parties to this lawsuit." Accordingly, the trial court was in error in not allowing the appellant to call a representative of the appellant. First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes, 431 So.2d 624 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RELIANCE INS. v. Pro-Tech Conditioning & Heating
...Furthermore, expert testimony is not required when a corporate representative is qualified to testify. See Casa de Alabanza v. Bus Service Inc., 669 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that in a breach of contract case, the trial court erred in prohibiting a representative of appella......
-
HEALTHSOUTH SPORTS MED. & REHAB v. Roark
...named, should have been able to testify as a representative of Healthsouth, defendants rely primarily on Casa de Alabanza v. Bus Service, Inc., 669 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). That case involved a dispute between a church and a mechanic who had not properly repaired the church's bus.......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Perez
...in fact as to the existence of a witness or as to how the witness would testify." Lugo, 487 So.2d at 324 ; Casa de Alabanza v. Bus Service, Inc., 669 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (finding the trial court erred in prohibiting a corporate representative from testifying where, although th......