ANTHONY TIRRI, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF GEORGE E. BATCHELOR, 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.
Court affirmed summary judgment against Tirri's duress claim, holding that a $1 million payment was voluntary because it was part of a negotiated renegotiation of material contract terms that enabled the transaction to close.
A payment made as part of a negotiated amendment to a commercial contract, where the amendment provided material benefits to the payor, is voluntary and not extracted under duress.
[1] A payment made as part of a negotiated renegotiation of material contract terms, where the payor receives substantial offsetting benefits, is voluntary and cannot be char…
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 intelligenceTirri and Batchelor entered into a 1998 stock purchase agreement. In February 1999, they amended the agreement, reducing by $25 million the cash Tirri…
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 Commercial Transactions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Tirri appeals an adverse summary judgment in litigation arising out of a commercial transaction. Plaintiff-appellant Tirri made a claim that the late George E. Batchelor extracted a $1 million sum from him under duress. The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to recapture the $1 million amount under the principles outlined in Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. of California v. McCaskill, 126 Fla. 82, 170 So. 579 (1936); see also Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Ewing, 151 Fla. 661, 10 So. 2d 316 (1942); Soneet R. Kapila, P.A. v. Giuseppe America, Inc., 817 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
The record reflects that the plaintiff agreed to pay the $1 million sum as one element of a February 1999 amendment to the parties’ 1998 stock purchase agreement. In the 1999 amendment, the parties renegotiated several material financial terms of the 1998 agreement. This included reducing by $25 million the amount of cash the plaintiff was to pay at closing and a corresponding increase in the amount borrowed by the plaintiff to pay for the purchase. Without this adjustment the plaintiff did not have sufficient cash to close on the transaction pursuant to the parties’ 1998 agreement. Given this renegotiation, the $1 million amount is properly viewed as having been a voluntary payment. See Hassen v. Mediaone of Greater Florida, Inc., 751 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Wurtz v. Fleischman, 97 Wis.2d 100, 293 N.W. 2d 155 (1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. McCaskill, 126 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1936)
- The Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Channing B. Ewing, 151 Fla. 661 (Fla. 1942)
- Hassen v. Mediaone OF Greater Fla., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Soneet R. Kapila, P.A. v. Giuseppe Am., Inc., 817 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)