DAVID L. PEPPER, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, 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 court affirmed summary judgment for the bank in a mortgage foreclosure action, holding that the borrower was precluded from defending against a release agreement based on his failure to read it or his claim of fraudulent inducement given the hostile relationship between the parties.
A party cannot defend against enforcement of a release agreement on the grounds that he did not read it before signing or that it was fraudulently induced when a hostile relationship existed between the parties precluding reasonable reliance on representations.
[1] A party cannot defend against enforcement of a release agreement by claiming he did not read the document before signing it.
[2] A party cannot assert fraudulent inducement as a defense to a release agreement when a hostile relationship between the parties precluded reasonable reliance on the other…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid L. Pepper executed a release agreement on October 5, 1989, releasing claims and defenses in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by First Union…
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 Duty To Read Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s entry of a summary final judgment in favor of appellee, First Union National Bank of Florida, in its mortgage foreclosure suit against appellant, David L. Pepper, based upon the release agreement executed by Pepper on October 5, 1989, in which he released the claims and defenses he now seeks to assert in defense of the foreclosure action. Pepper is precluded from defending against the enforcement of the release on the sole ground that he did not read the document before signing it. See Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla.1977); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA1985). Moreover, Pepper is precluded, as a matter of law, from defending against the enforcement of the release based on his claim of fraudulent inducement, because, due to the hostile and antagonistic relationship that existed between himself and First Union during the months prior to the execution of the release, Pepper could not reasonably rely on any representations made by First Union. See Pieter Bakker Management, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 541 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA) (on rehearing), review denied, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shacraha v. State, 635 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…t. (1991). We agree that these conditions must be stricken for failure to orally pronounce them at sentencing. These same conditions of community control have been stricken in Vincent v. State, 600 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) and Evans v. State, 605 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). By the state’s argument, we perceive that it (and perhaps the trial court) misconstrues what must be orally pronounced at sentencing. All special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at sentencing. Cumbie v. State,…
-
Moriber v. Dreiling, 194 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…se "[a] party entering into a transaction is not entitled to rely blindly on the opposing party’s representation where, as here, the relationship between the parties has been plagued with distrust”); see also Pepper v. First Union Nat. Bank of Fla., 605 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ("Pepper is precluded, as a matter of law, from .defending against the enforcement of the release based on his claim of fraudulent inducement, because, due to the hostile and antagonistic relationship that existed between h…
-
Brown v. Keystone State Bank, 614 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Pepper v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Florida, 605 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). WIGGINTON, MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)
- Merrill v. Lelia C. Benton, 467 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Pieter Bakker Mgmt., Inc. v. First Fed. Sayings & Loan Ass'n, 541 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)