Case Name: Leonard A. PELULLO, Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-07-23
Citations: 583 So. 2d 729
Docket Number: No. 90-1901
Parties: Leonard A. PELULLO, Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 583
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
Leonard A. PELULLO, Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 90-1901.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 23, 1991.
Roberts, Baggett, LaPace & Richard and William L. Hyde, Tallahassee, Richard and Richard and Laurel W. Marc-Charles, Miami, for appellant.
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman and Patricia H. Thompson and Lea Souza-Rasile, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the money judgment entered against the guarantor of promissory notes to the liquidator of an insolvent bank. The guarantor claimed that he did not have adequate notice of trial date. We disagree.
First, it is clear that while the guarantor's counsel withdrew, the attorney did so after notice of a calendar call and projection of a firm trial setting. See Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080(b). Second, the guarantor's written consent to the attorney's withdrawal made specific reference to the trial date. Thus, appellant had sufficient notice of trial.
Second, the money judgment entered was supported by competent and substantial evidence including depositions, testimony, and a court order enjoining a claimed settlement agreement. See Duval Util. Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 380 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980) ("substantial evidence" is that establishing a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.); Fleet Transp. Co. v. Mason, 188 So.2d 294, 296 (Fla.1966). Other points raised are without merit.
Accordingly, the final judgment under review is affirmed.