MRS. C. A. POWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD N. WALBEK AND DIANA B. WALBEK, HIS WIFE, 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.
A mortgagee sued to foreclose two mortgages securing notes from the sale of her restaurant. The mortgagors asserted failure of consideration as an affirmative defense, and after trial, the lower court found for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendants met their burden of proving failure of consideration by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the defendants carried their burden of proving failure of consideration by a preponderance of the evidence. A defendant to a suit on a promissory note may assert want of consideration as an affirmative defense in an unsworn answer and bears the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“It is clear that a defendant to a suit upon a promissory note, even though the note is under seal, may assert want of consideration as an affirmative defense (by an answer not under oath) and then assume the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard that defendants may plead failure of consideration and must prove it by preponderance of the evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePowell sold her restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia to the Walbeks for approximately $16,500, with the purchase price evidenced by two notes secured by mor…
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 Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit to foreclose two mortgages. Each mortgage was upon a separate parcel of land in Dade County, Florida. The appellees answered alleging a defense of failure of consideration to the notes evidencing the debt secured by the mortgages. The affirmative defense was asserted in an unsworn answer. After trial, the court entered a judgment for the defendants-appellees upon the ground “the plaintiff has failed to carry the necessary burden of proof raised by the plea of failure of consideration.” We affirm.
The appellant had sold her restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia, to the appellees for the approximate price of $16,500.00. The sum was paid in part by two notes which were secured by the mortgages mentioned above. At the trial, the appellant testified as to the sale of the restaurant and the giving of the mortgages. The instruments were introduced into evidence and the appellant rested. Appellee Harold N. Walbek testified at length concerning misrepresentations as to the sale of the restaurant, the physical condition of the equipment and the legal status of the lease. The appellees further claimed a loss of business because the appellant failed to perform according to the terms of the agreement. In addition, proof was produced that the appellant’s husband had reentered the premises through a distress proceeding and sold the furniture therein. The appellant did not offer evidence to rebut the appellees’ evidence on this issue.
We note at this point that the decisions in this case are based upon the law as it existed in this State prior to the effective date of the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. We will not extend this opinion by a discussion of the applicable sections of the Negotiable Instrument Law as it existed prior to January 1, 1967.
*489It is clear that a defendant to a suit upon a promissory note, even though the note is under seal, may assert want of consideration as an affirmative defense (by an answer not under oath) and then assume the burden of establishing the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Towles v. Azar, 112 Fla. 405, 150 So. 734, (1933); Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla. App.1959, 112 So.2d 394. As to burden of proof, see Florida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Miami v. Brown, Fla.1949, 47 So.2d 748. As to facts necessary to establish lack of consideration, see Beutel’s Brannan, Negotiable Instrument Law, 7th Ed., § 25, p. 490.
We find that the record adequately supports the finding of the trial judge.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bentz v. Carroll McDANIEL and Melvene J. McDaniel, 872 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…use was sufficient to defeat the adverse possession since we find in the first instance that the McDaniels failed to establish adverse possession. . The 1972 U.S. geological survey quadrangle map was not entered into evidence. . Powell v. Walbek, 209 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 219 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1968); Kelly v. Threlkeld, 193 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1967).…
-
Powell v. Walbek, 219 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 209 So. 2d 488.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Nat. Bank Tr. Co. v. Brown, 47 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1949)
- Towles v. Azar, 112 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1933)
- Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, 112 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)