TRAVELCO OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A FUGAZY INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN BURNETT, 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.
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the appellant was a holder in due course, making summary judgment improper.
Appellant sued appellee, who filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion. Appellant argued it was a holder in due course o…
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 Holder In Due Course cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, appeals a final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellee, defendant below.
Appellant filed a complaint for damages against appellee who, subsequently, filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 5, 1975, the trial court granted appellee’s motion. From the final summary judgment, appellant appeals.
Among other points, appellant contends that it was a holder in due course, as defined in Section 673.305, Florida Statutes (1975), of certain negotiable instruments on which appellee was the maker. As such a holder in due course, appellant argues that, based on the facts of this case, it was free from the defenses of appellee in regard to the enforceability of the negotiable instruments, here checks, against him. See Section 673.305 Florida Statutes (1975). In our opinion, at the time the trial court entered the final summary judgment, there existed a genuine issue of a material fact, i. e., whether or not appellant was a holder in due course of the negotiable instruments on which appellee was the maker. Therefore, it was improper for the trial court, at that stage in the proceedings, to enter a final summary judgment in favor of appellee. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reason stated and upon the authority cited, the final summary judgment appealed is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seinfeld v. Commercial Bank & Tr. Co., 405 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…osition rendered below. Northside Bank of Tampa v. Investors Acceptance Corp., 278 F.Supp. 191, 192 (W.D.Pa.1968); see also, duPont v. County National Bank of North Miami Beach, 369 So. 2d 443 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Travelco of Florida, Inc. v. Burnett, 338 So. 2d 50 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied. 345 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1977); A. B. G. Investment, Inc. v. Selden, 336 So. 2d 444 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Vernon v. Yanks, 303 So. 2d 375 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). It is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further consis…