JUPITER MORTGAGE CORP., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding the officer was authorized to sign the note and borrow funds. It also remanded for the full loan amount to be awarded.
Jupiter Mortgage Corporation appealed a summary judgment awarded to Bank of America on a business note and security mortgage. Bank of America cross-ap…
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 Ratification Of Corporate Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Jupiter Mortgage Corporation appeals from a final summary judgment awarding recovery in favor of Bank of America, N.A., under the terms of a business note and security mortgage. We affirm the judgment because the record indisputably shows that an officer of Jupiter’s predecessor in interest was authorized both to sign the note on the predecessor/eorporation’s behalf and to borrow the principal amount ($50,000) stated in the note.1 We also affirm the trial court’s order denying Jupiter’s motion to recuse.
Bank of America cross-appeals claiming that the trial court failed to award it the full amount ($61,454.26) loaned to Jupiter’s predecessor. In light of the undisputed evidence that the bank advanced this amount to Jupiter’s predecessor, we remand for the modification of the final judgment to award to Bank of America the full amount loaned and unpaid, plus interest and late charges, if appropriate.
Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The judgment can also be sustained because the loan was ratified by Jupiter’s predecessor. See Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (confirming that a corporation ratified the purportedly unauthorized signatures of a corporate officer on two promissory notes when it accepted the benefits of the note).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Priskie v. Missry, 958 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ssue the repayment checks to Missry, EXA’s board of directors later acknowledged the issuance of the checks and affirmed they were appropriately issued. Subsequent ratification cures any improper action. See Jupiter Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A, 871 So. 2d 1019 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). We find there was no evidence presented that would allow the trial court to pierce EXA’s corporate veil and hold Priskie personally liable for Missry’s loan to EXA. We reverse the trial court’s decision with regard to Priski…
-
Conrad FLB Mgmt., LLC v. Diamond Blue Int'l, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…Management, LLC did not exist as an entity at the time Cabanas signed the two promissory notes (the entity had changed its name to CFLB Management, LLC approximately seventeen months prior), section 3 See Jupiter Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 871 So. 2d 1019, 1019 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). 4 See Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). 673.4021(2)(b) imposes personal liability on Cabanas. In relevant part, this statute reads: (2) If a representative signs the name of the repres…
Authorities Cited
- Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)