ZOLA KLEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ROYALE GROUP, LTD. AND LEONARD A. PELULLO, 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 promissory note becomes enforceable once required documentary stamps are affixed, even if affixed after suit is filed, so dismissal was improper.
An instrument subject to documentary stamp tax becomes enforceable upon timely payment and affixation of stamps, even if done after litigation commences, and dismissal based on their absence is error if they are subsequently affixed.
[1] Documentary stamps required by section 201.08, Florida Statutes, need not be affixed before suit is filed; an instrument becomes enforceable upon their subsequent affixat…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The plain terms of section 201.08(1) require that an instrument not be enforceable in any court of this state until the tax due thereon has been paid. However, there is nothing in the statute or the case decisions that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed.”
Court explaining the distinction between the requirement for stamps and the timing of their affixation.
Klein sued The Royale Group and Pelullo (personal guarantor) on a promissory note. After Klein rested his case, Pelullo moved for involuntary dismissa…
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 Breach Of Personal Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Zola Klein sued The Royale Group, Ltd. for failure to pay a promissory note. In a second count, Klein sued Leonard A. Pelullo on his personal guaranty of the note. After the plaintiff had rested his ease in chief, an adjournment of the proceedings occurred. After the resumption of proceedings, the defendant-guarantor moved for an involuntary dismissal because of the plaintiff’s failure to pay the necessary tax on the promissory note and affix the appropriate documentary stamps to the written obligation as required by section 201.08, Florida Statutes (1989). Between the time that the motion for involuntary dismissal was made and the date of oral argument on that motion, the plaintiff purchased and affixed the required documentary stamps to the instrument in question.
Nonetheless, the trial court granted the guarantor’s motion for involuntary dismissal without prejudice. This was error. The plain terms of section 201.08(1) require that an instrument not be enforceable in any court of this state until the tax due thereon has been paid.
However, there is nothing in the statute or the case decisions that deny enforceability merely because the required documentary stamps have been belatedly purchased and affixed. Owens v. Blitch, 443 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See Silber v. Cn’R Indus., 526 So. 2d 974, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
For this reason, the order granting the guarantor’s motion for involuntary dismissal without prejudice is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…l, the second district reversed this ruling, holding that “[njothing in Florida law would deny enforceability of promissory notes merely because documentary stamps have been belatedly affixed.” Id. at 141. Similarly, in Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd., 578 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991), the plaintiff sued the defendant for failure to pay a promissory note. After the plaintiff rested his case, the defendant moved to dismiss the action on grounds that the plaintiff had failed to pay the necessary tax on the promi…
-
Glenn Wright Homes (Delray) LLC v. Lowy, 18 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ying a prohibition against enforcement of promissory notes appear to misread the statute. See Rappaport, 905 So. 2d 1024; Bonfiglio, 944 So. 2d 1087;2 Somma v. Metra Electronics Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd., 578 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Silber, 526 So. 2d 974. Silber examined an earlier version of the statute which did not divide section 201.08(1) into subsections (a) and (b) but contained similar language, including the prohibition of enforcement of advances un…
-
Akbar Nikooie v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…rce a mortgage debt when the documentary stamp tax has not been paid. In this district, a note or mortgage may not be enforced until the tax has been paid,11 but the court may permit the lender to pay the taxes belatedly. Klein v. Royale Grp., Ltd., 578 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The First District reached the same conclusion in Silber v. Cn’R Industries of Jacksonville, Inc., 526 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The Fifth District has addressed the particular question presented in the instant case,…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Silber v. Cn'R Indus. OF Jacksonville, Inc., 526 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- W.J. Owens and Aletha Owens v. Blitch, 443 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)