JULIO EDUARDO POLO AND BRANDFORD INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARCELA MUNOZ CORREA A/K/A MARCELA POLO, 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.
Appellants Julio Eduardo Polo and Brandford Investments of Florida challenged a summary judgment in favor of Marcela Munoz Correa, who sought to collect on replacement promissory notes as an assignee. The court affirmed, holding that Correa qualified as an accommodation party under Florida law and was therefore entitled to bring the action despite being a comaker on the notes.
The court held that Correa was properly classified as an accommodation party under Florida Statute § 673.4191(1), and therefore was privileged to bring the action as assignee of the notes. The trial court correctly determined that Correa received no benefit from the replacement notes and only undertook liability, establishing her status as an accommodation party as a matter of law.
[1] A party who signs a negotiable instrument without receiving value and for the purpose of lending credit to another party is an accommodation party.
[2] An accommodation party who pays the instrument may recover from the party accommodated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The record is clear that [the plaintiff] is an accommodation party to the Replacement Notes.”
Establishes the trial court's determination of plaintiff's status under the promissory notes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorrea brought an action to collect on replacement promissory notes after paying the amounts due and receiving an assignment from the bank/payee. Alth…
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 Accommodation Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants Julio Eduardo Polo and Brandford Investments of Florida, Inc. from an adverse final summary judgment entered in an action brought by the plaintiff Marcela Munoz Correa a/k/a Marcela Polo to collect on certain replacement promissory notes. We affirm.
It appears without material dispute that the plaintiff brought the instant action after she had paid the amounts due and owing on the replacement notes and had received an assignment from the bank/payee of the notes. Although the plaintiff was, herself, a comaker with the defendant on the replacement notes, the trial court found that she was an “accommodation party” on such notes, § 673.4191(1), Fla.Stat. (1993), and, aecord-ingly, was privileged to bring the instant action as assignee of the notes.
The defendants contend on appeal that a genuine issue of material fact is presented on this record as to whether the plaintiff is an “accommodation party” on the replacement notes, and that, accordingly, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the plaintiff. This is so, it is urged, because the plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, that she did not receive any benefit from the replacement notes. The trial court rejected this contention based on the following analysis contained in the summary judgment order:
“The record is clear that [the plaintiff] is an accommodation party to the Replacement Notes. The original notes that preceded the Replacement Notes do not have [the plaintiffs] signature, but only the signature of [the defendant] Polo in his individual capacity as well as his capacity as President of his corporations. The Replacement Notes consolidated existing obligations of [the defendant] Polo to the Bank. The record further shows that no new consideration exchanged hands at the time the Replacement Notes were executed by [the plaintiff], and she received no benefit by accommodating Polo. She only received a detriment, to wit: liability to the Bank.
[The plaintiff] who had no liability to the Bank on the preceding Notes, undertook, without benefit to her, liability to the Bank. [The defendant] Polo has failed to come forth with any competent credible evidence to rebut the presumption created by the record. He attempted by his self-serving affidavit to raise a ‘paper’ issue. However his affidavit is insufficient to rebut the strong presumption created by the notes themselves.”
We entirely agree, and, accordingly, the final summary judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.