EDWARD M. HANRAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL O. BARRY, 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.
Hanrahan appealed a summary judgment awarding Barry contribution on promissory notes where both were co-guarantors. The trial court deemed admissions established against Hanrahan due to his failure to timely respond to requests for admissions, but the appellate court reversed because the parties' failure to disclose a third guarantor made the damage calculation incorrect.
The court affirmed the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to accept Hanrahan's late answers to requests for admissions, but reversed the judgment because the amount of damages was incorrect. Under contribution law, Barry is entitled only to a one-third share from Hanrahan unless Barry can demonstrate the third guarantor is insolvent and the trial judge makes a judicial determination of such insolvency.
[1] A party's failure to timely respond to a request for admissions may result in the matters therein being deemed admitted.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept a tardy affidavit and untimely answers to a request for admissions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under the circumstances and facts as they were presented to the trial judge, we rule that he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to accept the defendant's late answer to request for admissions.”
Establishes that the trial court's procedural ruling to deem admissions was proper exercise of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHanrahan and Barry were co-guarantors on promissory notes. Barry paid the notes and sued Hanrahan for contribution. The trial court granted summary ju…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.370 cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
The defendant, Edward M. Hanrahan, seeks review of an amended summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Daniel 0. Barry, in an action for contribution stemming from promissory notes on which the parties were co-guarantors.
In entering summary judgment for the plaintiff, the trial judge refused to accept the defendant’s tardy affidavit and untimely answers to plaintiff’s request for admissions. The court stated that, defendant having failed to timely respond to the request for admissions, each matter therein was deemed admitted and thus conclusively established under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370. Therefore, it ruled that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Among the matters deemed admitted as a result of defendant’s failure to timely file answers to plaintiff’s request for admissions was the following:
“That by virtue of the guaranty of said note by [defendant] and the payment of the note on demand by [plaintiff], [defendant] owes [plaintiff] 50% of the principal and interest paid thereon by [plaintiff].”
In reliance on this admission, the trial judge awarded plaintiff the full amount of damages sought in his complaint, one half of the principal and interest paid on the notes by the plaintiff.
Under the circumstances and facts as they were presented to the trial judge, we rule that he did not abuse his discretion in refusing to accept the defendant’s late answer to request for admissions. However, it appears that a certain crucial fact known to both parties was never brought to the attention of the trial court. This fact renders the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff incorrect at this stage of the proceedings.
The admission recited above, and on which the trial court based its award of damages, is inaccurate for the reason that there was a third guarantor on the notes. Although the record reflects that neither party brought this fact before the trial court, the notes, copies of which are attached as exhibits to the pleadings, contain the signatures of three guarantors, plaintiff, defendant and another person.
Under this posture of the case, the plaintiff would be entitled only to a one third share from the defendant unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the third guarantor is insolvent, and the trial judge makes a judicial determination of such insolvency. See generally, Annot. 64 A.L.R. 213 (1929); 38 C.J.S. Guaranty § 115 (1943); 7 Fla.Jur. Contribution § 2 (1956); 18 Am. Jur.2d Contribution § 27 (1965).
Therefore, we reverse the amended summary judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curtis v. Cichon, 462 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…We agree. Appellees’ liability arises from the guaranty agreement, not from their status as stockholders. Guarantors are generally presumed to be equally liable for a proportion of the [*106] liability on the note guaranteed. See Hanrahan v. Barry, 363 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Here, the guarantees provide for joint and several liability; they do not indicate any intent to apportion the guarantors’ liability according to their percentage of stock ownership. Therefore, we reverse on this point. We also…
-
Usbcdc Inv. Fund 180, LLC v. Vosotas (S.D. Fla. 2025)…-CV-25092-ELFENBEIN See Shamieh, 355 So. 3d at 1052 (holding that co-obligor who paid more than his share of a joint debt could pursue contribution claim against co-obligor who paid nothing); Desrosiers, 660 So. 2d at 397 (same); Hanrahan v. Barry, 363 So.2d 54, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (reversing summary judgment for contribution where trial court failed to account for existence of third co-guarantor, holding defendant was liable only for one-third of debt). Because the plaintiffs in these cases brought dire…