BOULEVARD NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, PETITIONER,
v.
GULF AMERICAN LAND CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Boulevard National Bank seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of Gulf American Land Corporation on the ground of equitable estoppel. The Florida Supreme Court quashes the summary judgment, holding that injury is presumed under the circumstances and that the district court erred in requiring the bank to prove the extent of injury before applying estoppel doctrine.
Injury is presumed in estoppel cases where a party relies on representations and surrenders legal rights in consequence; summary judgment was improper because the record established a triable issue of fact regarding whether estoppel applied, and whether injury is great or small is of no consequence to the applicability of the estoppel doctrine.
“It is not necessary to weigh the injury in order to determine the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel. Under former decisions of this Court, injury is presumed in the circumstances set forth in this record.”
Establishes that injury need not be proven; it is presumed as a matter of law in estoppel cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoulevard National Bank held original promissory notes from Gulf American Land Corporation that were in default for more than eight months. The origin…
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 Equitable Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
The decision of the district court in this case is reported in 179 So.2d 584. *629The. following excerpt from that opinion in the light of the facts delineated therein which we are bound to accept is, in our judgment, sufficient to create the necessary conflict of decisions to vest jurisdiction in this Court and to require that the subject decision be quashed as an erroneous application of the law of estoppel, viz:
“However, the original notes were already in default for more .than eight months, the original security for these notes had proven to be of no value, no action had been taken against the assignor who died before' the commencement of this action, and the renewal period was for one month only. Estoppel being a doctrine based upon principles of justice and morality, we conclude that plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that it has been injured, as it is interpreted under the law, and that no injustice will be done if defendant is not estopped to assert its defense against the plaintiff.
“The evidence not being sufficient to establish an equitable estoppel, we find that the trial judge was correct in finding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
On the question of jurisdiction, the statement “plaintiff has not sufficiently shown that it has been injured” necessarily establishes a concession by the court that there exists a triable issue of fact. It is elemental that, under such circumstances, a summary judgment such as was entered in this case is improper and such decision, therefore, to that extent conflicts with a long line of decisions of this Court and other district courts of appeal.1
It is not necessary to weigh the injury in order to determine the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel. Under former decisions of this Court, injury is presumed in the circumstances set forth in this record. 2 Whether the injury is great or small is of no consequence.. It.is undisputed from the record that the petitioner hank, in reliance upon the representations orally and in writing of the respondent, surrendered the right to immediately enforce a past due obligation for an obligation which under its terms could not be enforced for a period of thirty days. Under such circumstances, the respondent should not now be permitted to deny the truthfulness óf the representations which induced the action on the part of the bank. ¡
The decision of the district court is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
THORNAL, C. J. and ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edbury R. Enegren v. Marathon Country Club Condo. W. Ass'n, Inc., 525 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…inium association’s interest. The weighing of the injury or interest, or the greatness or smallness of the injury, is not relevant to a determination of whether equitable estoppel can be applied. Boulevard Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Gulf Am. Land Corp., 189 So. 2d 628 (Fla.1966). In accordance with this opinion, the final judgment appealed from is reversed. Reversed. SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.…
-
Boulevard Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gulf Am. Land Corp., 212 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…at the trial judge was correct in finding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Gulf American Land Corporation, Fla. 1966, 189 So. 2d 628, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed the decision of this court, holding: “It is not necessary to weigh the injury in order to determine the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel. Under former decisions of this Court, injury is presumed in the…
-
Fla. Physicians Ins. Co. v. Richard L. Stern, M.D., 563 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ed as a result of PPTF’s actions. Once established, the amount of prejudice, whether large or small, becomes irrelevant when determining the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel. See Boulevard National Bank of Miami v. Gulf American Land Corp., 189 So. 2d 628 (Fla.1966), on remand, 190 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Enegren v. Marathon Country Club Condominium West Association, Inc., 525 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that PPTF is estopped from denyin…
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
- Mrs. Hortense J. Reese v. Schenck, 107 Fla. 166 (Fla. 1932)
- Sconyer v. Scheper, 119 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Smith v. Musso, 151 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Lee v. Quincy State Bank & Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 127 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1937)
- Boulevard Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Gulf Am. Land Corp., 179 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)