ROBERT NEEDLE, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, SUCCESSORS BY MERGER TO THE FIRST STATE BANK OF LANTANA, APPELLEE
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.
Robert Needle appeals a summary judgment in favor of First Union National Bank on two promissory notes totaling approximately $176,000. The court affirmed summary judgment on the first note but reversed as to the second note due to lack of proof of the amount due, and remanded for further proceedings.
The court affirmed summary judgment on the first note, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the parol evidence defense, but reversed summary judgment on the second note because the bank failed to file an affidavit establishing the amount owed, despite the defendant's admission of default.
[1] Parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict an unambiguous written document.
[2] A prior denial of summary judgment does not preclude a subsequent grant of summary judgment if new evidence is presented or the moving party demonstrates a lack of genuin…
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“Appellant's contention, that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement between the parties that the bank would look only to the security for the notes, is an attempt to contradict the unambiguous document by parole evidence.”
Establishes that parol evidence cannot be used to contradict clear written terms of a note.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Union National Bank sued Robert Needle and his wife on two notes in default: a $167,000 note secured by a mortgage on real property, and a $9,00…
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 Suit On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, First Union National Bank of Florida, sued Robert Needle and Mona R. Needle, his wife, in a four count complaint. The first two counts pertain to a note, the principal balance of which was $167,000.00. The note was secured by a mortgage on real property. The second two counts relate to a promissory note, the alleged balance of which was approximately $9,000.00, which note was secured by a security interest in a certificate of deposit. The complaint alleges both notes are in default. After denial of appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment because appellee had failed to demonstrate there was no genuine issue of material fact vis-a-vis appellants’ affirmative defenses, appellee took Robert Needle’s deposition and again moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgement as to both notes and Robert Needle perfected this appeal.
Needle contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because 1) summary judgment had previously been denied and no new affidavits had been filed, and 2) no affidavit proving up the second note had been filed.
We have considered the appellant’s points presented and find no error demonstrated in the first point. Appellant’s contention, that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement between the parties that the bank would look only to the security for the notes, is an attempt to contradict the unambiguous document by parole evidence. The trial court was correct in concluding that there was no genuine issue presented regarding that defense.
With regard to the second note, for some reason the appellee failed to file a supporting affidavit as to the amount owed. Appellant admitted in his answer that he was in default. However, the record did not establish the amount thereof.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to the first note originally dated September 31, 1984, and reversed as to the second note only as regarding the amount due and owing.
The case is remanded to the trial court for further consistent proceedings regarding the second note.
DOWNEY, DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.