MAC KLEIN AND ANNE KLEIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARRETT M. ROTHENBERG AND SAMUEL FELDMAN, 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 a summary judgment against an endorser of a promissory note, holding that the endorser was liable for the full amount of the note despite the maker's contention that payment was contingent on a specific fund.
The court held that Rothenberg, as an endorser, was liable for the face amount of the note, as the note was a promise to pay and not merely an agreement to pay from a specific fund.
Mellow Music, Inc. sued Barrett M. Rothenberg as endorser on a $5,000 promissory note. Rothenberg argued he was only liable if paid from cigarette com…
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action claiming rescission of a contract of purchase and damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendants as sellers to the plaintiffs as purchasers of an interest in a restaurant business. On this appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendants, the appellants present eighteen points but their main reliance is on the proposition that ordinarily fraud is not a proper subject of summary judgment. Bryant v. Small, Fla.App.1970, 236 So. 2d 150. As noted in the cited opinion, “This is not to say that there may not be unusual circumstances which will permit a summary judgment in a fraud or undue influence case, . . . ” Our review of this record convinces us that the summary judgment was properly entered in this case.
The pleadings, the depositions of the plaintiffs and the affidavits on file show conclusively that (1) as to the rescission action, the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to maintain the action and (2) as to the damage claim, no actionable fraud is alleged in the complaint or particularized in the depositions or affidavits.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TOY v. TOY, 315 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 305 So. 2d 78. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Harper v. State, 236 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Bryant v. Evans Small, 236 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)