GARY L. LEVINE AND LORA L. LEVINE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
RICHARD WAHRBURG AND BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., A NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Levines executed a promissory note to Barnett Bank, defaulted, and the bank obtained a final judgment. After the Levines' counterclaim in that action was denied, they filed a separate suit alleging bank misconduct. The trial court entered a default judgment against the Levines for failure to respond to the bank's counterclaim in the second action. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the bank properly offset funds and that the Levines' independent action was barred.
The court affirmed all aspects of the judgment. The bank properly offset the accounts and wire transfers against the note debt. The default judgment for failure to respond to the counterclaim was properly entered. The final judgment was properly entered against the Levines, and the bank's cross-appeal seeking summary judgment on the res judicata issue was dismissed as moot.
[1] A bank has the right to offset funds in a joint account and wire transfers as a partial payment of a defaulted promissory note.
[2] A party who fails to appeal an initial final judgment is generally precluded from raising the same issues in a subsequent independent action.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No appeal was taken from the original final judgment on the note and the bank clearly had the right to offset the accounts and wire transfer.”
Establishes that the bank's setoff rights were valid and not subject to challenge on appeal because no timely appeal of the original judgment was filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Levine executed a $50,000 promissory note to Barnett Bank. After default, the bank credited funds from a joint account and wire transfers toward …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Set Aside Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Levine executed a $50,000 promissory note to Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. Thereafter, the note came in default. The bank credited certain funds in a joint account of the Levines as a partial payment of the note, and certain wire transfers were also credited. Barnett commenced a suit to collect the balance due after a default judgment was entered. A final judgment in the principal sum of $50,769.17 was entered. No appeal of this judgment was taken. During the progress of the case the Le-vines attempted to file an answer and counterclaim,, alleging bank misconduct in connection with the loan and the seizure of funds. This proposed counterclaim was denied and no appeal was taken. Thereafter the Levines instituted an independent action seeking the same relief as alleged in the denied counterclaim. This was met by an answer setting up the defense of res judicata, among others.
The trial court denied a motion for summary judgment on the res judicata ground, after a default was entered against the Levines for failure to respond to a counterclaim. Final judgment in all respects was entered in favor of the bank and Wahrburg, its officer. The Le-vines appeal a denial of their motion to set aside the default for failure to respond to the counterclaim under clerk’s file number 87-1345. They appeal under clerk’s file number 87-1057 the final summary judgment as ultimately entered, and the bank cross appeals in this appeal the failure of the trial judge to enter a summary judgment on the res judicata issue.
We affirm in all respects. No appeal was taken from the original final judgment on the note and the bank clearly had the right to offset the accounts and wire trans fer. Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Grandin Industries, Inc. v. Florida National Bank at Orlando, 267 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
No error has been shown in the entry of the default for failure to respond to the counterclaim, Anish v. Topiwala, 430 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Doctors Hospital of Hollywood v. Madison, 415 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 422 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1982); B.C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), or in the entry of the ultimate final judgment. Gergora v. Flynn, 486 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Wesley Construction Co. v. Lane, 323 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1185 (Fla.1976).
The affirmance of the ultimate final judgment action makes moot the cross appeal.
Therefore the orders under review, as described in the notices of appeal by appellants, are affirmed and the cross appeal by the bank is dismissed as moot.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B. C. Builders Supply Co., Inc. v. Maldonado, 405 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Coyle v. PAN Am. Bank OF Miami, 377 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Grandin Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Orlando, 267 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Huesman v. Huesman, 323 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Doctor's Hosp. OF Hollywood, Inc. v. Hunter W. Madison and Minnie W. Madison, 415 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Gergora v. Flynn, 486 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Anish v. Amritlal Topiwala & Sunnyland Reflections, Inc., 430 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)