GEORGE BAKER THOMSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY S. PARRISH, 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.
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding conditions attached to a promissory note, precluding summary judgment.
Plaintiff sued defendant on a promissory note. The trial court entered summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no genuine issue of material fact. …
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 Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant has appealed from a summary judgment entered by the trial court in which the judge held as follows:
“a. A promissory note in the amount of $50,000.00 was executed and delivered by Defendant to Plaintiff.
“b. Said note was supported by adequate consideration.
“c. There were no conditions associated with the delivery of the note.
“d. Plaintiff made proper demand for payment of said note and Defendant failed to make said payment.
and that the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that BETTY S. PARRISH, Plaintiff, is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
We cannot agree with this holding. The* record shows that a genuine issue existed as to the material fact of whether conditions were attached to delivery of the note; and further, if such conditions existed, whether they had occurred so as to make the note presently payable. This issue- is clearly raised by the appellant’s answer, his deposition, and his sworn affidavit. Parol evidence is admissible to show conditions which may have been attached to a promissory note by the parties thereto. Tharp v. Kitchell, 151 Fla. 226, 9 So.2d 457; Evans v. United Benefit Fire Insurance Company of Omaha, Nebraska, Fla.App. 1966, 192 So.2d 87.
Since a genuine issue of material fact has been demonstrated to exist, the summary judgment is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Race, Inc. v. Lake & River Recreational Props., Inc., 573 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ther adjoining property). Thus, the rule is clear that parol evidence is admissible to show conditions that may have been added to a written instrument by the parties thereto. Tharp v. Kitchell, 151 Fla. 226, 9 So. 2d 457 (1942); Thomson v. Parrish, 221 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Because we have no way of knowing from the record before us whether the mortgagor’s oral modifications were made following the execution of the written contract, or were contemplated to make the contract conditional upon their p…
-
Schraw v. Est. OF Robert J. Hester, III, 751 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…t in a promissory note case. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact, the delivery of the note to the payee, a trial must be conducted to resolve the issue. See McClure v. Montgomery, 556 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Thomson v. Parrish, 221 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Evans v. United Ben. Fire Ins. Co. of Omaha, Neb., 192 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). See also First Nat. Entertainment Corp. v. Brumlik, 531 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). REVERSED and REMANDED. HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., con…
Authorities Cited
- Tharp v. Kitchell, 151 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1942)
- Evans v. United Benefit Fire Ins. Co. of Omaha, 192 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)