IN RE ESTATE OF HARRY T. WHITLEY, DECEASED
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.
This appeal concerns whether a $100,000 promissory note was a valid asset of the decedent's estate. The court affirmed the probate court's finding that a cancellation clause in the note—which voided the debt if the payee failed to demand payment before the payee's death—was enforceable and valid, rendering the note void and uncollectible by the estate.
The court held that the cancellation clause is valid and enforceable even though it was not signed by the payee, and that by accepting the note with its conditions, the payee accepted all provisions thereon. The promissory note is therefore void and unenforceable by the estate.
[1] A clause in a promissory note cancelling the debt upon the payee's death if payment is not demanded prior thereto is effective and binding on the payee's estate.
[2] A payee accepts the terms and conditions of a promissory note by accepting the note itself.
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“If demand for payment has not been made by the payee at the time of his death, the payee hereby waives his right to collect the unpaid principal amount of this note and the parties agree that this note shall be null and void.”
The cancellation clause at issue in the promissory note that the court found to be valid and enforceable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDecedent Harry T. Whitley received a $100,000 promissory note executed by Fridhilda Amman on August 18, 1983. The note contained a clause stating that…
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 Consideration For Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is an appeal of an order satisfying a debt. The decision of the probate court is affirmed.
This case involves the question of whether the obligation represented by a certain promissory note executed by decedent’s debtor is an asset of the estate. Specifically at issue is the validity of a clause in the promissory note cancelling the debt if payee failed to demand payment prior to his death.
Decedent’s widow, Lois F. Whitley, filed a statement of claim regarding a $100,000 promissory note executed by Fridhilda Amman on August 18, 1983, and payable to decedent. The note, which was signed by Amman, but not by decedent, contained the following clause:
If demand for payment has not been made by the payee at the time of his death, the payee hereby waives his right to collect the unpaid principal amount of this note and the parties agree that this note shall be null and void.
Prior to his death, decedent gave his attorney an envelope containing the original promissory note. Decedent wrote a note on the envelope which read:
Please destroy upon my demise if not claimed by me personally prior thereto.
Contrary to the instructions on the envelope, upon decedent’s demise, decedent’s attorney turned the promissory note and envelope over to the personal representative for his determination whether it was an asset of the estate. Decedent’s widow claims it was a valid contract constituting an estate asset. She claims the discharge clause is unenforceable because the note was unsigned by payee and because there was no consideration for the discharge of the debt.
The probate court found it was clearly the intent of the testator to discharge Ms. Amman from the debt upon his death. The record shows that decedent intended to avoid this anticipated controversy by instructing his attorney to destroy the envelope and its contents upon his death.
The probate court correctly found the promissory note to be void and unenforceable by the estate. The cancellation clause is effective even though it was not signed by decedent. In Re: Smith’s Estate, 244 Iowa 866, 58 N.W. 2d 378 (1953). The payee, by accepting the note and conditions on it, accepted the provisions thereon and his estate is bound by them. Id. The decedent’s intent to discharge the debt, as agreed by the parties to the contract, was properly proven by parol evidence. Jackson v. Parker, 153 Fla. 622, 15 So. 2d 451 (1943). The weight of authority supports this conclusion. See 127 A.L.R. 634.
Affirmed.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyatt v. State, 714 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…. The record in this case reveals that both motions were filed after the jury had been empaneled and sworn and thus were untimely. Therefore, the trial court was not required to inquire about the effectiveness of defense counsel. See Dukes v. State, 508 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); accord Haugabook v. State, 689 So. 2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); cf. Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256, 258-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, we affirm. Next, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his requ…
-
Bernadette Lauritsen v. Wallace, 67 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…hat is dependent upon the Probate Code for its authority. Because the note was forgiven by operation of a will, it is a testamentary devise that is subject to the dictates of the Probate Code. Appellee relies on the case of In re Estate of Whitley, 508 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to support his position that the decedent could forgive the promissory note through his will. In Whitley, 508 So. 2d at 456, the Fourth District Court of Appeal evaluated whether a promissory note executed by the decedent’s debt…
Authorities Cited
- Annibelle Jackson and Henry N. Jackson v. Parker, 153 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1943)