Goodman v. Goodman

Norman W. GOODMAN v. Dolores L. GOODMAN

Goodman v. Goodman, 204 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: November 17, 1967
Docket: No. 706
Judges: Joseph, McCain, Reed, White
Citations: 204 So. 2d 211967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4070

Cited by 8

Opinion of the Court — Whitejoseph

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge.

Plaintiff in the trial court appeals a final judgment rendered for defendant, the suit being upon a promissory note executed by defendant to plaintif-f at a time when they were husband and wife. The parties were divorced later, and sometime following entry of the divorce decree plaintiff brought suit upon the note.

The case went to trial before the court without a jury. Defendant interposed these separate defenses: 1. Statute of Limitations ; 2. Discharge of the note by virtue of a property settlement agreement incorporated in the divorce decree; 3. Accord and satisfaction; 4. Lack of consideration.

The court made a specific finding in the judgment that plaintiff’s claim was discharged by virtue of the property settlement agreement. Nothing was said by the court regarding any other defense.

Appellant now argues that the reason thus given by the trial court as a basis for the judgment is an insufficient one and that therefore the judgment should be reversed. In this position appellant has neglected to take into account the rule that a judgment will be affirmed, notwithstanding insufficiency in any particular finding, if, upon the entire record — pleadings and evidence — there is any theory under which the judgment can be' supported. See Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So.2d 222 ; Oper v. Air Control Products, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 561 ; Smith v. Bettinghaus, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 201 ; Best Concrete Corporation v. Oswalt Engineering Service Corporation, Fla.App. 1966, 188 So.2d 587 .

The record reveals substantial evidence supporting other defenses, or at least one of .them, upon which the judgment might have been entered and, hence, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
Firestone v. Firestone263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
Turner v. Turner383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Walton v. Walton290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)
Florida Real Estate Commission v. McGregor336 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1976)
Grabow v. Grabow419 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

Sheffield v. Superior Insurance Co.741 So. 2d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Grabow v. Grabow419 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Medlin v. Rucks397 So. 2d 950 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Turner v. Turner383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
Florida Real Estate Commission v. McGregor336 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1962)	72
	Best Concrete Corp. v. Oswalt Eng'g Serv. Corp., 188 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)	14
	Oper v. Air Control Prods., Inc., 174 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)	12
	Smith v. Bettinghaus, 178 So. 2d 201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list