PHILIP L. RUPPENTHAL, D/B/A MORTGAGE RESEARCH, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN B. WOOD AND TOBY A. ARNHEIM, 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.
A mortgage broker sued on a promissory note for $20,000 allegedly given in settlement of his commission claim. The trial court found the note lacked consideration and was procured under duress, rendering it unenforceable, and the appellate court affirmed.
The promissory note is not enforceable because it lacks legal consideration. Since Ruppenthal was fully paid for his services under the original contract with the partnership and performed no services for the defendants individually, the note cannot be supported by valid consideration.
[1] A promissory note, like any contract, must be supported by sufficient legal consideration to be enforceable.
[2] A note executed for services rendered to a partnership is not enforceable against individual partners if no services were performed for them individually beyond those con…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Like all contracts, promissory notes must be supported by consideration.”
Establishes the fundamental legal requirement that the promissory note must have valid consideration to be enforceable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuppenthal, a mortgage broker, contracted with Cayo Hueso Limited Partnership to obtain a $2,000,000 mortgage commitment for a hotel refurbishment pro…
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 Presumption Of Correctness Of Trial Court Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a mortgage broker, brought an action against appellees on a promissory note in the sum of $20,000 given to him by appellees in settlement of his claim for money alleged to be due to him for services rendered in obtaining certain loans for appellees and Cayo Hueso, Ltd., a limited partnership in which appellees were partners.
Appellees denied the indebtedness on the grounds that there was no consideration for the note and the note was procured by appellant by fraud and duress. Cayo Hue-so, Ltd. also filed a counterclaim which was dismissed.
Upon non-jury trial, the trial judge entered a final order providing, in pertinent part, as follows:
“FINDINGS OF PACT
1. On November 9, 1978, Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Cayo Hueso Limited Partnership (CHL). CHL needed $2,000,000.00 to continue refurbishing the Casa Marina Hotel in Key West, Florida. Plaintiff agreed to act as a mortgage broker for CHL and CHL promised to pay Plaintiff a commission if he succeeded in obtaining a mortgage. The amount of the commission was to be 2% unless the commitment was obtained from the Equitable Life Insurance Company, Gal-breath Mortgage Company or Chemical Bank & Trust Company. CHL had already contacted these companies before contracting with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was instructed to maintain contact with those lenders but in the event a commitment came from any of them Plaintiff’s commission was reduced to 1%.
2. The Defendant, Toby Arnheim, signed the contract in his capacity as general partner of CHL. The Defendant, Wood, signed only as a witness. Plaintiff received a $10,000.00 advance.
3. On February 27, 1979, Royal Trust Bank of Miami issued a commitment to loan funds to the project. This commitment was rejected by CHL because it did not conform to criteria set forth in the original contract.
4. On April 5,1979, the Equitable Life Assurance Society issued a commitment to CHL. CHL accepted this commitment.
5. On April 19, 1979, CHL paid Plaintiff the remaining $10,000.00 owed to him as part of his 1% commission on the Equitable commitment. Plaintiff also received a $20,000 note signed by Defendants, Wood and Arnheim, individually. This note, the subject matter of this lawsuit, was executed and delivered under duress.
6. There was one other contract between Plaintiff and CHL dealing with a separate project; the Villas of Key West. No commitment was ever received on the project and Plaintiff’s authority to act for CHL has been terminated. 7. There was no record showing of any service performed by Plaintiff for Mr. Wood or Mr. Arnheim individually.
8. At -the close of the evidence, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendant’s and CHL’s Counterclaim; and also granted the Defendant, Wood’s, Motion to Dismiss the case against him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9. A contract is an agreement supported by sufficient consideration to do or refrain from doing some lawful thing.
10. Like all contracts, promissory notes must be supported by consideration.
11. Plaintiff has been fully paid on his original contract with CHL and was rightfully terminated on his second contract.
12. At no time did Plaintiff perform any services for Mr. Arnheim individually or any services for CHL beyond those contracted. As a result, Plaintiff’s note from Mr. Wood and Mr. Arnheim is wholly lacking in any legal consideration.
13. Since there can be no indebtedness without legal consideration the note is not enforceable.
It is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff, PHILLIP L. RUPPENTHAL, take nothing and Defendants shall go hence without day, each party to bear their respective costs.
DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of March, 1982.”
It is a well established principle that every judgment, order or decree of a trial court brought up for review is clothed with a presumption of correctness and the burden is on appellant in all proceedings before the reviewing court to make error clearly appear. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
In the appeal sub judice, we have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore for the reasons stated the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rihl v. Tammi D. Rihl, 727 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…is the appellant’s burden to make error appear, and he has failed to do so. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); E & I, Inc. v. Excavators, Inc., 697 So. 2d 545, 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ruppenthal v. Wood, 425 So. 2d 194, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In the absence of a challenge to the trial court’s calculations and reasoning, we decline to disturb the trial court’s ruling.2 The husband argues that his commission income fluctuates seasonally, and that the trial court’s…
-
Consol. Real Est. Invs., Inc. v. Padilla, 529 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of park tenants, Jimmy and Justo Padilla. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Consolidated’s post-trial motions based on Consolidated’s failure to demonstrate reversible error. See Ruppenthal v. Wood, 425 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 338 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We also affirm the final judgment in favor of the Padillas. A jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence presented at trial that, notwithstandin…
-
Fickle v. In re Est. OF Joan Peters Fickle, 568 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979); Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1978); Ruppenthal v. Wood, 425 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)