CLAIRE D. CAREY, APPELLANT,
v.
CAREY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, INC., APPELLEE; CLAIRE D. CAREY, APPELLANT, V. BOYCE BUILT HOMES, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Appellant sold a trailer park to appellee in exchange for cash and two promissory notes. The trial court reformed the larger $140,000 note due to ambiguity, including revising the interest provisions. On appeal, the court affirmed the reformation except for the interest clause, which it found contained no ambiguity and should not have been rewritten.
The court affirmed the reformation of other aspects of the note but reversed the reformation of the interest provision. The original interest language was unambiguous and could not be rewritten without clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake of fact, which was not present here.
[1] A court may reform a promissory note based on parol evidence only if the evidence clearly and convincingly reveals a mutual mistake of fact.
[2] Ambiguity in a promissory note's interest provision is a prerequisite for reformation of that provision.
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“There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the interest provision and it was error for the court to rewrite it unless the evidence clearly and convincingly revealed a mutual mistake of fact.”
Establishes the legal standard for reforming an unambiguous contract provision, requiring clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake of fact.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Claire Carey sold a trailer park to Carey Investment Corporation and Boyce Built Homes. She received cash plus two promissory notes totaling…
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 Reformation Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant sold a trailer park to appellee and received cash plus two promissory notes for $25,000 and $140,000, respectively. The larger note did not conform to the terms of the written purchase agreement and was ambiguous in some respects. The trial court reformed that note and this appeal was taken. We affirm the judgment except for the matter of interest on the reformed note.
Because of the ambiguity in the note, the court admitted parol evidence bearing upon the intent of the parties and revised the note by (1) inserting a due date in fifteen (15) years, (2) making half the principal due unconditionally, (3) limiting interest to accrue on only that portion of principal unconditionally due, and (4) making the balance of the principal due only on certain stated conditions.
At oral argument appellant narrowed the focus of her attack to the revision limiting the interest to accrue on the note. Consequently, we address here only that issue.
As prepared and signed by the parties, the pertinent portions of the note provide:
PROMISSORY NOTE
$140,000.00 Holiday, Florida January 13, 1978
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Claire D. Carey . . the principal sum of One Hundred Forty Thousand and 00/100 ($140,000.00) Dollars together with interest thereon from January 13, 1978, at the rate of Six (6%) Per Cent per annum on the unpaid balance until paid. . . . interest payments shall be made semiannually commencing on July 13,1978.
There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the interest provision and it was error for the court to rewrite it unless the evidence clearly and convincingly revealed a mutual mistake of fact. Nussey v. Caufield, 146 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The only evidence on this particular point came from the attorney who negotiated the sale for appellant. He testified that interest at the rate of 6% per annum was to be paid semiannually, until maturity, on the full $140,000. Appellee at no time controverted that testimony. Consequently, the court erred in reforming the interest provision.
Accordingly, those portions of the final judgment purporting to “reform” the semiannual interest provisions of said promissory note are hereby vacated and set aside, so as to leave intact the original language of the note calling for semiannual payments of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum of $140,000, commencing July 13, 1978. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gevertz v. Gevertz, 608 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…interest rates, the trial court’s application of any interest rate other than five and one half percent (5½) constitutes a rewriting of that provision. The trial court erred in rewriting an unambiguous provision. See Carey v. Carey Inv. Corp. Inc., 385 So. 2d 154 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Next, Anna correctly concedes that the trial court erred in applying a 12% interest rate on the fees and costs where the mortgage unambiguously provides for a ten percent (10%) interest rate. Finally, Sandra contends that the $2…
Authorities Cited
- Nussey v. Caufield, 146 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)