GERALD C. WATSON AND CATHERINE J. WATSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CENTRAL FLORIDA PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
A party who renews a note with knowledge of facts, or the ability to discover them, is bound by that knowledge at the time of renewal.
Defendants executed a promissory note for a real estate transaction, later renewed it, and then defaulted. They claimed a partial payment defense, ass…
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 Suit On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Gerald C. Watson, et ux, appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Central Florida Properties, Inc., in a suit on a promissory note.
It appears that the defendants executed a note payable to the plaintiffs in connection with a real estate transaction. The property involved was released without payment of the debt. Later, the defendants executed a renewal of the note, and it is this renewal that is the subject of the present suit.
The defendants, as a defense, claimed that before the renewal note was executed they had made a partial payment of $1,000; that said payment was made by a partnership in which the husband defendant was a partner, and that he was not aware of the payment and had, therefore, signed the renewal note for the amount without taking into consideration said claimed $1,000 payment. Defendants later made installment payments on the renewal note totaling $270.00.
The court held that the defendant could not raise such a defense on a renewal note, and entered a summary judgment for the plaintiff.
It is well settled in our law that one who gives a note in renewal of another note with knowledge of facts and circumstances or by the exercise of ordinary diligence could have discovered such facts and circumstances, and ascertain his rights before the execution of the note, is bound as if he had actual knowledge thereof at the time of execution. Franklin Phosphate Co. v. International Harvester Co., 1911, 62 Fla. 185, 57 So. 206.
Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. Intercontinental Bank OF Miami Beach, 372 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…te”, neither defense was available to the defendant, Frank, in the trial court. See: Padgett v. Lewis, 54 Fla. 177, 45 So. 29 (1907); Hurner v. Mutual Bankers Corporation, 140 Fla. 435, 191 So. 831 (1939); Watson v. Central Florida Properties, Inc., 172 So. 2d 608 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). Therefore, the final judgment under review is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Emerson v. Lavinia B. Mansfield, 204 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Reese v. Schenck, 107 Fla. 166, 144 So. 313; Watson v. Central Florida Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 608; Economy Plumbing Co., Inc., v. Charles Sales Corp., Fla.App.1967, 348 So. 2d 204 [opinion filed November 28, 1967]; § 58.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; 4 Fla.Jur,, Bills, Notes and Checks, §§ 57, 74, 149, 207.…
-
Sadler v. Hubbard, 287 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…[*336] PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Hurner v. Mutual Bankers Corporation, 1939, 140 Fla. 435, 191 So. 831, and Watson v. Central Florida Properties, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 608. HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., and JOHNSON, W. CLAYTON, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Franklin Phosphate Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co. of Am., 62 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1911)