SEYMOUR D. ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES M. FRIEDMAN, ROBERT BLANK, BARUCH RLCHMAN, A/K/A BRUCE RICHMAN, C & B, INC., AND C. B. R. CORP., FORMERLY KNOWN AS LEMOSTRON, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's claims of fraud were resolved by a subsequent accord and satisfaction and a general release.
No, the trial court did not err. The defendants demonstrated that an accord and satisfaction was reached after the fraud claim was made, and the general release was executed to discharge that claim, thus resolving factual issues as a matter of law.
“But the defendant-appellees have demonstrated beyond any genuine issue of material fact that the accord and satisfaction was reached after the claim of fraud has been made and that the general release was executed for the purpose of discharging that claim.”
Establishes the defendants' successful demonstration of factual resolution regarding accord and satisfaction and release.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued for equitable relief, alleging he was fraudulently deprived of his interest in a corporation. The defendants responded that the par…
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 Issue Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment in an action in which he sought equitable relief upon a claim that he had been fraudulently deprived of his interest in a closely held corporation. The defendants’ answer alleged that the parties had arrived at an accord and satisfaction and that the plaintiff for valuable consideration executed a general release of the defendants. Summary judgment was entered after several depositions were taken and several affidavits filed.
On this appeal the plaintiff-appellant has demonstrated from the record that issues of fact were raised by the allegations in his complaint. But the defendant-appellees have demonstrated beyond any genuine issue of material fact that the accord and satisfaction was reached after the claim of fraud has been made and that the general release was executed for the purpose of discharging that claim. Therefore the trial judge correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants as a matter of law. See Green v. Manly Construction Company, Fla. App.1964, 159 So.2d 881, 886.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pacemaker Corp. v. Euster, 357 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…all such matters had been removed from controversy by the settlement, general release, and dismissal of the prior action with prejudice. Cf. D.F.S., Inc. v. Beasley Crane Service & Sales, Inc., 251 So. 2d 727 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Robinson v. Friedman, 219 So. 2d 54 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). Following the settlement and release, there remained as a basis for future controversy only the one-year warranty above quoted and disputes which might arise with relation to the quality and suffi [*211] ciency of the repairs whic…
Authorities Cited
- Green v. Manly Constr. Co., 159 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)