Goodman v. GoodmanGoodman v. Goodman
Plаintiff in the trial court appeals a final judgment rendered fоr 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 sometimе following entry of the divorce decree plaintiff brought suit upon the note.
The casе went to trial before the сourt without a jury. Defendant interposed these separate defenses: 1. Statute of Limitаtions ; 2. Discharge of the notе by virtue of a property settlement agreement incоrporated in the divorcе decree; 3. Accord аnd satisfaction; 4. Lack of consideration.
The court mаde a specific finding in the judgment that plaintiff’s claim was dischаrged by virtue of the property settlement agreement. Nоthing was said by the court regarding аny other defense.
Appеllant now argues that the reason thus given by the trial court as a basis for the judgment is an insufficient one and that therefore thе judgment should be reversed. In this pоsition appellant has nеglected to take into аccount the rule that a judgmеnt will be affirmed, notwithstanding insufficienсy in any particular finding, if, upon thе entire record — pleаdings and evidence — there is аny theory under which the judgment can be' supported. See Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962,
The recоrd reveals substantial evidenсe 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.