CONTES
v.
ZANZARELLA
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.
In this bench trial, the court held that a plaintiff could recover on a promissory note despite the loss or destruction of the original instrument, relying on a carbon copy and applicable UCC provisions. The defendant's defenses—including that the carbon copy violated the best evidence rule, that he had reacquired the note discharging his liability, and that the plaintiff failed to file a petition in circuit court—were all rejected.
The court held that the plaintiff could recover on the note despite loss of the original document. The defendant's objection to admission of the carbon copy was overruled, the reacquisition defense failed for lack of proof, the best evidence rule defense was inapplicable (the Florida Evidence Code had not yet taken effect), and no circuit court petition was required. Judgment entered for plaintiff in the amount of $1,075 plus costs.
[1] A promissory note meeting the requirements of Florida Statute 673.104 is valid.
[2] A signature on a negotiable instrument is presumed genuine and is deemed admitted if not specifically denied in the pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“That the holder of the note, the plaintiff, would be entitled to recover on said note upon "production of the instrument" unless the defendant established a defense.”
Establishes the basic rule under UCC 673.307(2) that a note holder can recover absent a valid defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 16, 1977, defendant Anthony Zanzarella signed a promissory note for $1,500 payable to plaintiff William N. Contes. The original note met U…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Final judgment: This matter was tried by the court on October 5, 1977. The court, having considered the testimony of the parties and the arguments of counsel, makes the following determinations of fact and conclusions of law —
1. That on or about February 16, 1977 the defendant, Anthony Zanzarella, signed a promisory note for $1,500 which was payable to the plaintiff, William N. Contes. Said note met the requirements set forth in Florida Statute 673.104 (1) (a) (b) (c) and Florida Statute 673.104 (2)(d), Uniform Commercial Code - Commercial Paper.
*792. That the original note was not presented at trial because it either was “lost or stolen” (as testified to by the plaintiff) or “ripped up” by the defendant (as testified to by the defendant). In any event, the only written document still existing and which was submitted to the court is a typed carbon copy of the original note.
3. That the defendant did not specifically deny, in the pleadings, his signature. Accordingly, the signature is presumed to be genuine, and the signature is deemed admitted as the signature of the defendant, Anthony Zanzarella. Lipton v. Southeast First Nat. Bank of Miami, 343 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Florida Statute 673.307 (1) (a) (b).
4. That the holder of the note, the plaintiff, would be entitled to recover on said note upon “production of the instrument" unless the defendant established a defense. Florida Statute 673.307 (2). (Emphasis added.)
5. That the defendant has raised three defenses to this action —
A. The carbon copy is not admissible because it is not the best evidence as provided in Section 90.953, “Florida Evidence Code,” Chapter 76-237, Laws of Florida (1976).
B. The defendant has been discharged from liability on the note because he had reacquired the note (instrument) in his own right. Florida Statute 763.601 (3) (a).
C. The plaintiff failed to file a petition in circuit court as set forth in Florida Statute 71.06 to establish the existence of the note.
6. That the first defense is without merit because the effective date of the “Florida Evidence Code” was delayed until July 1, 1978, by virtue of Chapter 77-77, Laws of Florida (1977).
7. That the defendant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he “reacquired” the instrument in his own right.
8. That the plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was the owner of the note, despite the fact that the note was lost, stolen or destroyed. Florida Statute 673.804 (Uniform Commercial Code-Commercial Paper); 4A Fla. Jur., Bills, Notes, Etc., Section 53.
Based on the aforesaid it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defendant’s objection to the typed carbon copy of the original note being admitted into evidence is overruled.
*80It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, William N. Contes, do have and recover from the defendant, Anthony Zanzarella, the amount of $1,075, plus costs in the amount of $25.50, for which let execution issue.
It is further ordered and adjudged that the demand for reasonable attorney’s fees is deferred until such time as the appropriate affidavits can be submitted in support of said demand.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lipton v. Se. First Nat'l Bank of Miami, 343 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)