HENRY F. HILL, AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR DADE PLUMBING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
COPLAN PIPE & SUPPLY CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 trustee in bankruptcy for Dade Plumbing appeals a judgment finding no overpayment to Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., despite evidence of complex fund transfers involving the company's treasurer. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the payments constituted advances made by the treasurer to his own company through Coplan as a conduit, rather than overpayments.
The trial court's finding that the payments were not overpayments but rather advances by Jaffee to his own company, with Coplan acting as a conduit, was supported by substantial competent evidence and is affirmed.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact in a non-jury trial are presumed correct on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
[2] Appellate courts should not disturb a trial court's findings of fact when there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support them.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the findings rendered on conflicting evidence by a trial judge when a cause is tried without jury comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and this court should not disturb the trial court's findings absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court findings in non-jury cases, requiring clear error to reverse
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade Plumbing purchased plumbing supplies from Coplan Pipe & Supply Co. The trustee alleged overpayments of $526,975.69. At trial, evidence showed tha…
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 Counterclaim For Overpayment cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, the counterplaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment entered at the conclusion of a non-jury trial.
The appellant filed a counterclaim against the appellee, Copian Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. alleging overpayment for purchases of plumbing supplies which Dade Plumbing, Inc. made from the appellee.
At the trial, a C.P.A., Donald Weinberg, testified on behalf of the appellant that these alleged overpayments were in the amount of $526,975.69.
At trial, it further was developed primarily through documentary evidence, circumstantial in nature, that Ben Jaffee, Dade Plumbing’s treasurer, had transmitted $505,000 to Copian Pipe, and the latter, without crediting this sum to its own books, had deposited the money in the account of its president, Milford Purcel. It was shown that Purcel also transmitted the funds to Dade Plumbing, in the exact amount which Jaffee had given to Coplan Pipe. And, Coplan endorsed certain promissory notes executed by Dade Plumbing as the maker to Coplan as payee over to Jaf-fee.
Weinberg’ also testified that Dade Plumbing paid the amounts due on the notes, and thus appellant contends an overpayment resulted. On the other hand, the appellee argues that the notes were paid to Jaffee who in effect had made advances to his own company, Dade Plumbing, through the circuitous means indicated by the evidence at trial as outlined hereinabove. Appellee maintains that it acted solely as a conduit in this transmittal of funds. The trial court found in favor of the appellee.
By its first two points on appeal, appellant asserts reversible error by the trial court in reaching the conclusion that Dade Plumbing’s payments on the promissory notes were not overpayments to Coplan, but were part of a scheme in which Jaffee advanced funds to the appellant.
However, it is well-settled that the findings rendered on conflicting evidence by a trial judge when a cause is tried without jury comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and this court should not disturb the trial court’s findings absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous. Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 756; Conrad v. Larson, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 806; Eldredge v. Pettingill, Fla.App. 1973, 275 So. 2d 266.
Our examination of the record reveals that there is substantial competent evidence in support of the trial court’s determination.
We also have considered the third point advanced by the appellant in its brief and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…orrectness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248, 248-49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The standard of review for an award of attorney’s fees, whether based on contract or statute, is abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In the instant case, as in Solar Research, Universa…
-
Reya Raheb and Parvin Pahlevanian Raheb v. Di Battisto, 483 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…no authority on this appeal to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court through a re-evaluation of the testimony and evidence appearing in the appellate record. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 303 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1974); see also Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad, 130 So. 2d 580, 583 (Fla.1961); Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So. 2d 744, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 407 So. 2d 1103 (1981). We…
-
Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…orrectness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So. 2d 248, 248-^9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In this case, the trial court issued a very detailed order specifically listing the facts upon [*1145] which it relied as well as detailed conclusions of law to support the award. Sunshine raises two main issues on appeal. Sunsh…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pokress v. Josephart, 152 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Grauer, 275 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Conrad v. Larson, 201 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)