LAVOIE
v.
SKYRMES
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.
Skyrmes sued Lavoie to enforce a promissory note after default. The trial court denied Skyrmes's motion for continuance to pay documentary stamp taxes, then ruled the note unenforceable for nonpayment of such taxes. The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court was bound by precedent to grant a continuance or dismiss without prejudice when the tax issue was discovered.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance motion. Under binding Fifth District precedent, when documentary stamp tax nonpayment is discovered, the court must either dismiss without prejudice or grant a continuance to allow payment of the taxes. The judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for new trial. The court did not address the other two claims of error.
[1] A promissory note is unenforceable if required documentary stamp taxes have not been paid.
[2] When a court discovers that documentary stamp taxes have not been paid on a promissory note, the court must either dismiss the action without prejudice or abate the actio…
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“In an action to enforce such a note, once the court discovers that the documentary taxes have not been paid, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice, or upon proper motion abate the action for a time sufficient to enable the plaintiff to purchase documentary stamps and affix them to the note.”
Establishes the mandatory procedure the trial court was bound to follow under Somma precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn early 2015, Lavoie executed a $5,000 promissory note payable to Skyrmes with monthly $100 payments starting April 1, 2015, maturing December 1, 201…
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 Dismissal With Prejudice Vs. Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
Before Murphy, Traver, Carsten, J.J.
In early 2015, Mr. Lavoie executed a $5,000 promissory note payable to Mr. Skyrmes. The note required monthly payments of $100, beginning April 1, 2015, and maturing on December 1, 2019. Mr. Lavoie did not make the payment due on October 1, 2015 and tendered no subsequent payments. Mr. Skyrmes notified Mr. Lavoie of the default and intent to accelerate, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the promissory note. After Mr. Skyrmes transmitted a second notice to Mr. Lavoie, he filed a statement of claim for the full balance due under the note.
On the date of trial, the trial court raised the issue of whether Mr. Skyrmes had paid the documentary (“doc”) stamp taxes on the promissory note. The court indicated that a promissory note was unenforceable if the doc stamp taxes were not paid. Counsel for Mr. Skyrmes stated that she did not know this, and requested a continuance so that Mr. Skyrmes could pay the taxes. The court denied the motion to continue. The case proceeded to trial, where Mr. Skyrmes presented evidence that Mr. Lavoie willingly signed the promissory note and failed to make payment under its terms. At the close of the case, the court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Lavoie, holding that the promissory note was unenforceable for failure to pay the doc stamp tax. Mr. Skyrmes requested a dismissal without prejudice, which the court denied.
Appellant makes three claims on appeal: (1) The trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for continuance prior to the start of trial, (2) The promissory note was not rendered unenforceable by nonpayment of the doc stamp tax because it did not secure future advances, and (3) The trial court erred when it entered judgment of dismissal with prejudice after Mr. Skyrmes requested dismissal without prejudice.
The trial court correctly noted that it was bound by the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Somma v. Metra Electronics Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which held that a promissory note was unenforceable where a note’s holder had not paid thedoc stamp tax. However, that case also held: In an action to enforce such a note, once the court discovers that the documentary taxes have not been paid, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice, or upon proper motion abate the action for a time sufficient to enable the plaintiff to purchase documentary stamps and affix them to the note.
Somma, 727 So. 2d 302
In the instant case, the court itself raised the issue of nonpayment of the doc stamp tax. When counsel for Appellant made a proper motion for continuance so that Mr. Skyrmes could pay the doc stamps, the court incorrectly denied the motion. The court was bound by Somma to either dismiss the action without prejudice or to grant the requested continuance. It did neither. For this reason alone, the Court finds the judgment in this matter must be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court. As a result of this ruling, the Court does not reach the other two claims of error. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment is Reversed and Remanded for a new trial. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this _______ day of ____________, 2018.