Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 11, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
Jose Stern appeals a final judgment favoring Amnon Gad, Personal Representative of the Estate of Juan Francisco Vargas, which has been reversed. Stern and Vargas, both Colombian emerald dealers, conducted business primarily in Colombian pesos but agreed to transact certain dealings in U.S. dollars in 1983. Payments for these transactions were to be made from a Bank of Miami account, and five undated checks totaling $805,000 were later found among Vargas's belongings after his death in 1985. Gad, the personal representative, deposited these checks in 1986, but they were returned for insufficient funds.
Gad claimed the estate was entitled to payment on the checks, despite having no knowledge of how they were issued or the decedent’s business affairs. Stern counterclaimed for the return of the checks, asserting they were provided as security for emerald purchases and should not be cashed without his consent. He indicated the actual balance due to the estate was only $60,000.
During the trial, Stern sought to introduce a ledger sheet documenting the Miami transactions, maintained by his son-in-law David Haim, but the court excluded it as not qualifying as a business record. This exclusion was deemed erroneous on appeal, as the ledger was a contemporaneous record of the transactions.
The ledger in question was maintained as part of a regular business activity between Stern and the decedent using a Miami dollar account, despite the personal representative's claims to the contrary. Haim testified that ledger entries were made regularly to accurately reflect the account's balance and were based on information from Stern and Vargas. In February 1984, Haim, Stern, and Vargas confirmed the ledger's balance as accurate. The personal representative's argument against the ledger's admissibility based on Haim's lack of a consistent practice in maintaining such records for his own gem business was deemed misplaced; the ledger was specifically kept at Stern's request. Evidence indicated that the statutory requirements for business records were met, warranting the ledger's admission.
The personal representative contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment, which was found to be valid. While he acknowledged several dollar transactions between Stern and the decedent, he lacked knowledge of their specific dealings. His experience in the emerald business and informal credit practices were noted, including a long-standing relationship with Stern. The defense supported that Stern provided undated checks as security for emerald purchases, which were not to be cashed without his authorization. The parties agreed that as of February 10, 1984, Stern owed the decedent $910,000, which Haim’s subsequent accounting showed had been reduced to $60,000 by June 1984 through payments and returns.
In the closing argument, the personal representative started with a balance of $910,000 as of February 10 and argued that subsequent payments and goods returns should not reduce this balance. The representative claimed that removing these credits left an outstanding balance of at least $805,000, which the estate could collect. The trial court ruled in favor of the personal representative. However, Stern challenged the judgment, asserting a lack of substantial evidence supporting the representative's claims. Upon review, it was found that the most significant post-February 10 credit was a $450,000 return for gems, constituting nearly half of the initial balance. The personal representative erroneously argued that this credit should only be $45,000, but there was no evidence for this claim. Testimony confirmed the gems were purchased and returned for full credit, thus the $450,000 amount was valid.
The personal representative further misapplied a $45,000 figure and an $80,000 check from Stern to hypothesize a replacement for an earlier destroyed check, suggesting hidden transactions not reflected in the ledger. None of these arguments were supported by substantial evidence. The personal representative also claimed a business record was inadmissible because it was prepared by someone who was not an employee, which was deemed incorrect; such records remain valid regardless of who prepared them. Additional arguments about matching checks and the $100,000 check to Ortiz were also unsupported. The court ultimately reversed the judgment, instructing for a new judgment in favor of the personal representative for $60,000, including potential interest adjustments.
