BARNETT BANKS TRUST COMPANY, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
TITUSVILLE ASSOCIATES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY AND THROUGH MICHAEL J. LEVITT, ITS GENERAL PARTNER; AND MICHAEL J. LEVITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Construction Of Written Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
DENIED.
JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., specially concurring with written opinion.
ERVIN, Judge,
specially concurring.
Contrary to appellees’ assertion on rehearing, I find no conflict between this court’s opinion and Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). It was this court’s decision that Wakefield is factually distinguishable, because it is unclear in that case whether the motion for summary judgment was timely filed.
As to the parol evidence issue, I certainly have no problem with the rule of law “[t]hat parol evidence is admissible to connect several written instruments and show that they were all parts of one transaction.” Burgan v. Pines Co. of Ga., Ltd., 382 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also Northwestern Bank v. Cortner, 275 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Clearly the letter of credit and the operating deficit guaranty were part of the same transaction. This court properly construed those documents together, and in so doing, found that neither instrument renders the other ambiguous, and that both are consistent with the overall loan transaction. Under those circumstances, it was error for the trial court to consider additional parol evidence when it construed those instruments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lipsig v. Zahid A. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…implication of his statement to Angelos, and since the evidence created a fact issue as to whether Lipsig’s statements were false and defamatory, the trial court properly submitted the issue of slander to the jury. See Healy v. Suntrust Serv. Corp., 569 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(em-ployer’s statement that plaintiff/employee had been discharged for misappropriating funds could be equated to an accusation of theft, and since plaintiff had no intent to steal but had merely failed to follow defendant’s…
-
Fla. Fern Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Concerned Citizens OF Putnam Cnty., 616 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ng with issues of qualified privilege, the question of whether a privilege exists or has been exceeded in some manner creates a mixed question of law and fact which normally should be determined by the trier of fact. Healy v. Suntrust Service Corp., 569 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Glynn v. City of Kissimmee, 383 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We are aware of the Concerned Citizens of Putnam County’s argument that the present lawsuit reflects a standard tactic in environmental litigation. See P…
-
Hardwick v. State, 630 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…to cause great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to the victim. The issue of proof of intent is, in this context, analogous to that involved in theft, another specific intent offense. See Healy v. Suntrust Service Corp., 569 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As explained in Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217, 1219-1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1983): Although the State must prove intent just as any other element of a crime, Uber v. State, 382 So. 2d 1321 (…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Nw. Bank v. Cortner, 275 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Grover W. Burgan & Am. Sportsman of N. Fla., Inc. v. The Pines Co. OF Ga., Ltd., 382 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Wakefield Nursery v. Hunter, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Diaz v. Epstein, 443 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)