FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE UPPER KEYS, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CARIBE EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
First National Bank sued Caribe Equipment Corporation and its guarantors on six promissory notes. The defendants raised the defense of accord and satisfaction, and a jury found in their favor. The bank appealed, arguing it was entitled to a directed verdict, but the appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that accord and satisfaction was properly submitted to the jury because evidence supported both interpretations of the parties' intent.
The bank was not entitled to a directed verdict because the record contained testimony and reasonable inferences supporting both interpretations of the parties' intent regarding the transfer. Therefore, the defense of accord and satisfaction was properly submitted to the jury, and the court may not interfere with the jury's resolution of the factual issue.
[1] A jury verdict on the issue of accord and satisfaction will not be disturbed on appeal if there is testimony and reasonable inferences supporting the jury's resolution.
[2] The defense of accord and satisfaction is a question of fact for the jury when the parties' intent regarding the discharge of obligations is disputed.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record contains testimony and reasonable inferences on both sides of the issue of whether the parties intended the transfer simply to provide additional security for the debts, as the bank contended, or, as argued by the defendant, to effect a complete payment and discharge of those obligations.”
Establishes that ambiguity regarding the parties' intent made accord and satisfaction a proper jury question
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaribe Equipment Corporation executed six promissory notes to First National Bank with guarantors. Subsequently, Caribe transferred accounts receivabl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent Of The Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The appellees, who were the defendants below, were the maker and guarantors of a series of six promissory notes given the plaintiff-appellant bank. The bank’s action to recover on the notes was met by the defense of accord and satisfaction. A jury trial ended in a verdict for the defendants and the bank has taken this appeal from the resulting judgment against it. In its sole point, the plaintiff claims the right to a directed verdict in its favor on the ground that, as a matter of law, the obligations represented by the notes and guarantees had not been discharged. We disagree and affirm.
Subsequent to the initial transactions, the maker of the notes, Caribe Equipment Corporation, made a transfer to the bank of accounts receivable and other assets — the face value of which exceeded the total amount of the loans — beyond those originally employed to collateralize the notes.
The record contains testimony and reasonable inferences on both sides of the issue of whether the parties intended the transfer simply to provide additional security for the debts, as the bank contended, or, as argued by the defendant, to effect a complete payment and discharge of those obligations.
Hence, the defense of accord and satisfaction was properly submitted to the jury, East Coast Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); J.
A. Cantor Associates, Inc. v. Blume, 106 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 190 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Best Concrete Corp. v. Oswalt Engineering Service Corp., 188 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Rosenfield v. Glickstein, 159 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Kitchens v. King, 102 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); see Miller-Dunn Co. v. Green, 154 Fla. 72, 16 So. 2d 637 (1944); United States Rubber Products, Inc. v. Clark, 145 Fla. 631, 200 So. 385 (1941); and we may not interfere with its resolution of the issue. Holman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 209 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…erseding agreement. Ordinarily, that issue, in turn, is one of fact which may not properly be resolved by summary judgment. E. g., Burley v. Mummery, 222 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see First National Bank of Upper Keys v. Caribe Equipment Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and cases cited. Ryder, however, citing Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 2 So. 373 (1887) and McGehee v. Mata, 330 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), invokes the established doctrine that an accord and satisfaction results as a matter…
-
United AIR Leasing Corp. v. F.A. Conner, 446 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976); First National Bank of the Upper Keys v. Caribe Equipment Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980).…
-
The Keyes Co. v. Rocky Graziani, Inc., 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…argues that they are internally inconsistent with each other. We may not properly consider the first contention, e.g., Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. R., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); First National Bank of the Upper Keys v. Caribe Equipment Corp., 378 So. 2d 19 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980), and the inconsistency point was waived by the failure to assert it at the trial. Robbins v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 769 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Savoca v. Sherry Frontenac Hotel Operating Co., 346 S…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- United States Rubber Prods., Inc. v. Clark, 145 Fla. 631 (Fla. 1941)
- Miller-Dunn Co., Inc. v. Green, 154 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1944)
- Best Concrete Corp. v. Oswalt Eng'g Serv. Corp., 188 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- J. A. Cantor Assocs., Inc. v. Blume, 106 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. DAY & Co., 190 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. DAY & Co., 209 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- In re Est. of Fred Cohen & Flagship First Nat'l Bank of Miami Beach v. Chet Holland, 370 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Rosenfeld v. Glickstein, 159 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Kitchens v. King, 102 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)