Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1228,1228 |
| Citation | 208 So.2d 152 |
| Parties | POMPANO PAINT CO., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. POMPANO BEACH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barry J. Stone, of Weck, Harper & Stone, Pompano Beach, for appellant.
Richard H. Roth, of Miller, Tucker, Roth & Prominski, Pompano Beach, for appellee.
The plaintiff-appellee is Pompano Beach Bank and Trust Company. The defendant-appellant is Pompano Paint Co. The defendant appeals from an order of the circuit court granting a motion by the plaintiff for summary final judgment.
The complaint alleges that one George W. Provost executed and delivered to the plaintiff a promissory note in the amount of $526.08 secured by a chattel mortgage on a 1960 Jaguar automobile, a default on the note, possession of the automobile by defendant, and all other allegations necessary to support a foreclosure of the chattel mortgage.
The defendant's answer denied all material allegations in the complaint and alleged seven affirmative defenses as follows: estoppel, laches, payment, accord and satisfaction, novation, unclean hands, and waiver. The defenses were never tested by a motion to strike.
The defendant served a set of interrogatories on the plaintiff. The plaintiff bank moved for a protective order as to certain of these interrogatories, and the said order was granted on 27 December 1966. The order relieved the plaintiff of any obligation to answer the interrogatories to which objection was made.
On 16 December 1966 the plaintiff moved for a summary judgment attaching thereto an affidavit of one of its officers stating that George Provost had executed the note and mortgage sued on and that the note was in default. The affidavit and instruments attached thereto indicate that the lien of the bank was recorded with the Department of Motor Vehicles on 9 August 1965. Another affidavit attached to the motion for summary judgment was by an employee in the Civil Division of the Broward County Sheriff's Department. It indicates that the mortgaged automobile was sold on 16 December 1965 to the defendant at a sheriff's sale.
The defendant's attorney filed an affidavit which he executed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The affidavit indicated that the attorney knew of his own knowledge:
'That George Provost made a settlement with the plaintiff Bank wherein the said Provost paid to the plaintiff a cash consideration in excess of $1,000.00 in settlement of his accounts with said Bank.'
On 10 January 1967 the circuit judge entered an order on the motion for summary judgment. The order reads as follows:
'* * *
'Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same hereby is granted.
'Done and Ordered in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1967.'
The defendant filed a notice of appeal on 19 January 1967 from that order. The notice of appeal does not designate the appeal as interlocutory, and the defendant has treated the appeal as a full appeal under F.A.R. 3.2, 32 F.S.A.
At the outset we run into a procedural problem. The order granting the motion for summary judgment is clearly not a final order or judgment appealable as such under F.A.R. 3. Chastain v. Embry, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 33; Pinellas County v. Woolley, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 217; Stone v. Buckley, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 298; Renard v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 719; Florida Living for the Retired, Inc. v. Retirement Hotel Associates, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 83. This court, however, will treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal under F.A.R. 4.2. See Crepaldi v. Wagner, Fla.App.1961,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Cunningham
...Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 53; Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 461; Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 152. Additionally we find merit in the appellant's contention that the court abused discretion in denying her reque......
-
Palardy v. Igrec, 79-1940
...So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bailey v. Allstate Insurance Co., 218 So.2d 761 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank and Trust Co., 208 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Williams v. Maddren, 147 So.2d 572 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). We find further support for this conclusion in th......
-
Nagelbush v. United Postal Sav. Ass'n
...Johnson & Kirby, Inc. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Fort Lauderdale, 338 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank & Trust Co., 208 So.2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), and is hereby reversed and remanded to the trial court for further Reversed and remanded. ...
-
Mancino v. National Indus. Bank of Miami, 74-1382
...148 So.2d 53, 56; Underwriters Insurance Company v. Sisung, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 461; Pompano Paint Co. v. Pompano Beach Bank and Trust Company, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 152, 153; Jenkins v. Graham, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 330, 332; City of Hallandale v. State ex rel. Sage Corporation, Fl......