MARILYN KAY THAL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARION ROTH AND ALAN ROTH, HER HUSBAND, 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 court held that the appellant failed to preserve the parole evidence rule argument and that the jury's finding on holder in due course status was supported by evidence.
Appellant sued appellees on a promissory note. The appellees presented a defense of a contemporaneous oral agreement. The jury returned an adverse ver…
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 Holder In Due Course cases and more on FLexlaw
By cross-claim, appellant sued appellees upon a promissory note given to Luella Helen Strauss, who thereafter transferred the note to Sidney Thai, who transferred it to appellant. Sidney Thai is appellant’s former husband. The appellant suffered an adverse jury verdict. This appeal was taken from a final judgment entered thereon.
Under appellant’s point one, it is urged that the defense presented by the ap-pellees was a contemporaneous oral agreement to satisfy the note by some means other than payment according to its terms and that as such, it was barred by the parole evidence rule. An examination of the record reveals that the objection was not made before the trial court. Therefore, it cannot be considered here. Ross v. Florida Sun Life Ins. Co., Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 892.
Appellant’s second and third points are based upon the premise that the appellant was shown by the evidence to be a holder in due course and therefore not subject to the defense presented. We find that the position of appellant was a disputed question of fact properly submitted to the jury and determined adversely to the appellant. Since there is evidence to support the conclusion of the jury it will not be reversed here. Fuoté v. Maule, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 563.
Appellant’s points four and five are directed to rulings of the trial court as to the amendment of the answer and the admission of certain evidence. In each instance the appellant has failed to demonstrate harmful error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ings waives the right to invoke the rule on appeal. See Pathway Fin. v. Miami Intern. Realty Co., 588 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); King v. Estate of King, 554 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied; 564 So. 2d 487 (Fla.1990); Thai v. Roth, 173 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Ross v. Florida Sun Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla.2 DCA 1960); Frank v. Pioneer Metals, Inc., 121 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1960). Hence, we proceed to determine whether the trial court arri…
-
Charles v. Colin S. McLACHLAN, 209 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in Hilton v. Northern Central Trust Co., 114 Fla. 796, 154 So. 328 (1933). Accord, Brenner v. Smullian, Fla. 1955, 84 So. 2d 44; Thal v. Roth, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 174.…
-
Lilia Cordones v. Brevard Cnty., 781 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…to Crouse’s testimony on valuation at the time it was entered and thus they waived this point for purposes of appeal. See Griffing Bros. v. Winfield, 53 Fla. 589, 43 So. 687 (1907); Horne v. Hudson, 772 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Thai v. Roth, 173 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(party who fails to object to introduction of parol evidence during trial waives right to raise objection on appeal). AFFIRMED; REMANDED to Modify Order to Limit Duration of Easement to Fifty Years. GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concu…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hervey S. Ross v. Fla. SUN Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Fuote v. Grayson Maule and Barbara Maule, 143 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)