GERALD KNAUER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM LIEBOW, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM LEVY AND PEARL H. LEVY, 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.
The administrator of an estate sued on a promissory note against the makers. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that introduction of a promissory note into evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case without additional evidence of the debt's present status, and that defendants bear the burden of proving payment as an affirmative defense.
A promissory note is itself evidence of the existence of the debt, and its introduction into evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case without additional evidence of the present existence of the debt. The defendants, having pleaded payment as an affirmative defense, bear the burden of establishing payment by a preponderance of the evidence.
“The promissory note is itself evidence of the existence of the debt and its introduction into evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.”
Establishes that a promissory note requires no additional extrinsic evidence to prove the debt exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Liebow's administrator brought suit on a $25,000 promissory note signed by William and Pearl Levy. The administrator testified that he found t…
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
Gerald Knauer, as administrator of the estate of his uncle William Liebow, deceased, brought suit against William Levy and Pearl H. Levy upon a $25,000 promissory note payable to Liebow and signed by the Levys. Paragraph numbered “3” of the complaint alleged “Defendants owe to plaintiff the amount of said note and interest.” The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint except for paragraph numbered “3” and “affirmatively allege that said note has been paid in full.” The administrator was the only witness for the plaintiff. Upon his testimony, that he found the note among his uncle’s (William Lie-bow’s) papers, it was admitted into evidence. The administrator was unable to testify of his own knowledge as to what amount, if any, was due upon the debt represented by the note.
The court upon motion granted a directed verdict for the defendants and from the final judgment the administrator appeals. The sole question to be decided is: In a suit upon a promissory note must the plaintiff prove by evidence dehors the instrument that the debt is due and unpaid in order to establish a prima facie case?
The promissory note is itself evidence of the existence of the debt and its introduction into evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.1 When it is regularly admitted into evidence no additional evidence of the present existence of the debt is necessary upon the case of the plaintiff.
Upon the retrial of this case, the defendants, who set forth the affirmative defense of payment in their answer,2 have the burden of establishing payment to plaintiff’s intestate by a preponderance of the evidence.3
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobs v. Berrien Becks, Jr., 355 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…at issue. The trial court’s ruling was that the Plaintiff failed to present evidence outside the promissory notes themselves that the debt was unpaid and therefore failed to establish a prima facie case. That decision is contrary to Knauer v. Levy, 115 So. 2d 776, 777 (3d DCA 1959), wherein the court stated: “The sole question to be decided is: In a suit upon a promissory note must the plaintiff prove by evidence dehors the instrument that the debt is due and unpaid in order to establish a prima facie case?…1 / 2
-
Ernestine Haycook v. Ostman, 397 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…, must be made by way of affirmative defenses as to which the burden of proof is on the defense. See Jacobs v. Becks, 355 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Broward Nat. Bank of Ft. Lauderdale v. Bear, 125 So. 2d 760 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); Knauer v. Levy, 115 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla.3d DCA 1959). No affirmative defense having been established in this case the judgment in favor of the maker’s estate is reversed for entry of a proper judgment in favor of the payee-holder of the note. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ORFINGER a…
-
Klein v. Witte, 142 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…the note into evidence and he thereby established a prima facie case and the burden of going forward then shifted to the defendant to show that the debt had been discharged, citing authority to establish this principle, Knauer v. Levy, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 776. This decision, and the numerous others to the same effect, are all predicated upon the introduction into evidence of a note not torn into four pieces as was the note in this case. Had the note not been so torn, the burden of proving each element es…
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
- Click v. Dowd, 102 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1931)
- Drake Lumber Co. v. Semple, 100 Fla. 1771 (Fla. 1930)
- Drake Lumber Co. v. Semple, 100 Fla. 1757 (Fla. 1930)
- Parsons v. Ramsey, 53 Fla. 1055 (Fla. 1907)
- Cooper v. Gilbert, 40 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 1930)
- Sariego v. Int'l Bank of Tampa, 119 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1935)