JAY MORTON AND BLANCHE MORTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
MERCANTILE NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, A UNITED STATES BANKING CORPORATION, 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.
Jay and Blanche Morton appeal a summary judgment in favor of Mercantile National Bank on guaranties they executed for a note issued to Bill Dock Cars & Service, Inc. The court affirmed, rejecting the mortgages' defenses that the guaranties were invalid due to alterations, that extensions discharged them, and that minor name variations rendered the guaranties ineffective.
The court held that all of the Mortons' defenses were properly struck and the summary judgment was appropriate. Alterations adding witnesses and acknowledgment do not affect liability where no statute requires such formalities; extensions of time are expressly authorized by the guaranty contract; a minor variance in the obligor's name does not render the guaranties ineffective; and any proposed amended defenses were similarly insufficient.
“No Florida statute requires a guaranty to be acknowledged or witnessed. Upon the facts in this case, any such alteration would not change the guarantors' liability”
Establishes that technical alterations to guaranties do not affect enforceability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Mortons executed written guaranties guaranteeing payment of a note issued to Bill Dock Cars & Service, Inc., payable to Mercantile National Bank o…
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 Guaranty Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, Jay Morton and Blanche Morton, executed written guaranties of payment of a note by Bill Dock Cars & Service, Inc. payable to the appellee, Mercantile National Bank of Miami Beach. They appeal a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-bank upon the guaranties.1
It is not contested that the note was not paid and that the appellants signed the guaranties.
The appellants claim error in that the court struck their affirmative defenses numbered eleven and twelve. Defense number eleven alleged that the guaranties had been altered by adding witnesses and an acknowledgment. No Florida statute requires a guaranty to be acknowledged or witnessed. Upon the facts in this case, any such alteration would not change the guarantors’ liability; 2 therefore, the trial judge did not err in striking the purported defense.
Defense twelve alleges that the guarantors were discharged because an extension of time for payment was granted the maker of the note. This attempted defense was properly struck because the contract of guaranty expressly authorized such extensions.
Appellants also attempt to avoid liability by asserting that the note was executed by Bill Dock Cars & Service, Inc., but the guaranties refer to an obligation of (and suit was brought against) Bill Dock Cars and Service, Inc. The variance does not render the guaranties ineffective. See Schulze v. Light, Tex.Civ.App. 1940, 143 S.W.2d 200. Appellants’ reliance upon American Ladder & Scaffold Company, Inc. v. Miami Ventilated Awning Company, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 268, is not well-founded because we dealt there with two different names. There was no showing that “Miami Ventilated Awning” was either a corporation or a partnership or an individual doing business under a trade name.
Appellants further urge error upon the denial of their motion for leave to file amended defenses. No error was committed because the amended or additional defense was likewise insufficient.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chris Craft Indus., Inc. v. VAN Valkenberg, 267 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1972)…in Fuller, Inc. v. Frank E. Jonsberg, Inc., [*645] 107 Fla. 330, 144 So. 653 (1932), rehearing denied 107 Fla. 330, 145 So. 67 (1932) and the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, in Morton v. Mercantile National Bank of Miami Beach, 185 So. 2d 172 (Fla.App.3rd 1966). The bedrock questions concern themselves as to whether the affirmative defenses filed by the respondent (hereafter defendant) were sufficient in and of themselves as a matter of law to survive the petitioner’s (hereafter plainti…
-
Multi Rest. Concepts, Inc. v. Chrysler Cap. Corp., 545 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…firmative defenses offered by appellants, and consequently are unable to agree with appellants’ contention that triable issues of fact with respect to the affirmative defenses precluded entry of summary judgment. See Morton v. Mercantile Nat’l Bank, 185 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Affirmed.…
-
Champion Home Builders, Inc. v. Highridge Sales, Inc., 472 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…uthorizes such extensions, an extension of time within the contemplation of the agreement does not discharge the guarantor. Chris Craft Industries, Inc. v. Van Valkenberg, 267 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1972); Morton v. Mercantile National Bank of Miami Beach, 185 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Bleakley v. Sarasota Bank & Trust Company, 194 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). See also 38 Am.Jur.2d, Guaranty § 94. Appellee’s reliance on Miami National Bank v. First International Realty Investment Corp., 364 So. 2d 873 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bland v. Fid. Tr. Co., 71 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1916)
- McCranie v. Cason, 79 Fla. 857 (Fla. 1920)
- Miller v. The Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank & Gladys Schutz, 150 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Am. Ladder & Scaffold Co., Inc. v. The Miami Ventilated Awning Co., Inc., 150 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)