CURTIS L. O'NEAL AND WILMA J. O'NEAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ORLANDO, A 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.
Summary judgment for lender affirmed where parol evidence of alleged oral agreement to inspect construction was properly excluded under the Parol Evidence Rule.
A parol agreement that would modify a written construction loan agreement by imposing inspection duties on the lender is barred by the Parol Evidence Rule.
[1] A parol agreement that would modify the express terms of a written construction loan agreement by imposing inspection and quality-assurance duties on the lender is barred…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants obtained a construction mortgage loan from appellee with a written agreement providing for inspections and conditional disbursements; appel…
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 Contract Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment for the appellee in a mortgage foreclosure action.
Appellants obtained a mortgage loan from the appellee for the construction of a dwelling house on their property. The construction loan agreement provided for periodic inspections by appellee and that scheduled disbursements of funds could be withheld until defective construction was corrected.
The affidavit of appellant-O’Neal stated that at or before the time he and his wife signed the Procedure and Construction Loan Agreement they were assured by one of appellee’s officers that appellee would make inspections so as to assure that the house would be constructed in a first-class and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor. Paragraph 14 of said Agreement provides as follows: “Approval of Workmanship and Materials — The Association has the right to disapprove defective work and material and may withhold payments until defects are corrected.”
The appellants contend there was a parol agreement and that the same should not be barred by the Parole Evidence Rule.
The record discloses that the alleged parol agreement would modify said Construction Loan Agreement and place upon the appellee a burden of inspection not embraced or contemplated in the written agreement. 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 383.
By this ruling the other questions raised are rendered moot.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shupnick v. Pershing Auto Leasing, Inc., 383 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…his agreement was never produced and we conclude that such testimony was not admissible to vary the terms of the 1967 letter agreement which was the complete and total agreement between the parties. See O’Neal v. First Fed’l Savings and Loan Assoc., 328 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Only evidence as to the value of two new and fully insured and serviced Cadillacs per year for the stated period is permissible. Finally, Shupnick urges as reversible error the trial court’s failure to award interest. The clai…