Case Name: The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert P. FRANK, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-10-18
Citations: 442 So. 2d 982
Docket Number: No. 82-1190
Parties: The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert P. FRANK, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 442
Pages: 982–985

Head Matter:
The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Robert P. FRANK, Appellee.
No. 82-1190.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 18, 1983.
Paul & Thomson and Sanford L. Bohrer, and Richard J. Ovelman, Miami, for appellant.
Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer, Weil & Zack and Larry S. Stewart, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Challenging a jury verdict and the ensuing final judgment entered in a libel action, The Miami Herald appeals an award to Robert Frank of $80,000 in compensatory damages. Frank instituted his lawsuit following the Herald's publication of an article entitled "The Saga of David and Ethyl" written by Michael Putney. In the article Putney related events culminating in the bankruptcy of David Balter's company, Pac Craft Corporation, and its subsequent takeover following a failed attempted reorganization to avoid declaring bankruptcy. Put-ney described Balter's struggle to retain control and reported the million dollar awards Balter obtained in lawsuits against individuals he believed to have defeated the reorganization. The article referred to an unsuccessful malpractice action by Balter against his attorney, Robert Frank, in which the jury returned a verdict in Frank's favor. Despite the jury verdict exonerating Frank of malpractice, the Herald article attributed Balter's failure to obtain a necessary loan to Frank's conduct as Balter's attorney, stating:
When the creditors' committee accepted Balter's plan, he was given until 5 p.m. on Aug. 6, 1969 to submit the $43,-000 which was his part of the plan....
Balter missed the deadline because his attorney, Frank, failed to draw up the necessary loan document before the close of the business day. Frank also failed to get the clerk of the court's seal on it so that when Balter finally arrived at the [Hialeah bank] on the evening of Aug. 6, a bank officer who had verbally agreed to loan Balter as much as $50,000 refused to go through with the deal. By the time Balter had obtained the clerk's seal the next day, Wolf had retrieved his $100,000 check and the bank refused again to make the loan, (emphasis added)
When The Herald refused to retráct the statements, Frank instituted a libel action and was awarded damages.
In seeking reversal The Miami Herald first contends that the verdict rests upon insufficient evidence that the statements relating to Frank constituted libel. Two well-settled principles of review govern our disposition of this cause:
First, it is not the function of an appellate court to reevaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the jury_ Second, if there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the District Court's opinion as to its appropriateness.
Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Ry., 349 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1977).
We find no merit in appellant's contention. Our review of the record reveals the presence of substantial competent evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the statements pertaining to Frank were false and that their publication established the requisite degree of negligence on the part of The Herald. Tribune Co. v. Levin, 426 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The record contains evidence that the loan was denied for reasons unrelated to Frank's actions and that Frank was not contacted by Put-ney for confirmation prior to the appearance of the article. Controlling legal principles preclude us from disturbing the jury's determination. Helman; Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The Herald also asserts that the statements are substantially true and are therefore not libelous even if partially inaccurate. It maintains that because it announced the verdict in Frank's favor, it was not subject to liability for the offending statements. We disagree. Ane.
Finally, we find no legal support in appellant's assertions that the court erred in instructing the jury with regard to the effect of the verdict in the Balter malpractice action against Frank; that the court erred in refusing to allow the jurors from the Balter trial to explain their verdict; or that the trial court erroneously admitted the testimony of Frank's journalism expert.
Finding ample support for the jury's verdict, we affirm.
. The article was published in the Tropic Magazine section of the May 21, 1978 edition of The Miami Herald.
. Balter v. Frank, 386 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
. There is little support in the record for the position espoused by the dissent: (1) the prior malpractice verdict was admitted into evidence during the trial without objection by either of the parties; (2) the Miami Herald requested the court to instruct the jury that the prior verdict "does not mean that the statements in the article upon which this suit is based are false." The court refused to give this instruction and in its place charged the jury with the more neutral instruction that the Balter verdict did not necessarily mean that the statements were false and that they might consider the verdict along with all the other evidence in the case; (3) although the record reflects that the Miami Herald preserved its objection to the jury charge concerning the verdict in the malpractice case, that instruction, even if somewhat unclear, did not rise to the level of reversible error when considered in the context of "all the other instructions given, and the pleadings and evidence in the case." Yacker v. Teitch, 330 So.2d 828, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).