SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD Z. TAINES AND SUE TAINES, HIS WIFE, ET AL., 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.
Southeast First National Bank of Miami appealed a trial court judgment requiring it to return $160,000 that it had received from Miami Mortgage Services, Inc. via check. The bank argued it could apply the check to the debt of the original borrowers, but the court held that because the bank rejected the extension offer that was the condition for retaining the check, it was obligated to return the funds to Miami Mortgage Services.
The bank must return the $160,000 check to Miami Mortgage Services because the letter clearly conditioned retention of the check upon the bank's acceptance of the extension request, and the bank's rejection of that request triggered an obligation to return the funds. Additionally, a third-party payor cannot be required to contribute funds toward another's debt merely because it made or gave the payment with the holder's consent.
[1] A party retaining a payment conditioned upon acceptance of specific terms must return the payment if those terms are not accepted.
[2] A payment made by a third party to secure an agreement may be recovered if the agreement is not consummated.
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 letter of December 31, 1974 clearly stated that retention of the $160,000 check drawn on the account of Miami Mortgage Services was conditioned upon the Bank's acceptance of Terrell-Brown's extension request.”
Establishes the conditional nature of the payment and why the bank was obligated to return the check upon rejecting the extension.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSoutheast First National Bank loaned $2,000,000 to Robin Brown, Roger Terrell, and six others. In December 1974, as a $443,000 payment came due, the b…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Southeast First National Bank of Miami, appeals a final judgment directing it to return $160,000 to defendant Miami Mortgage Services, Inc. Southeast First National Bank of Miami loaned $2,000,000 to Robin Brown, Roger Terrell and six other individuals. A payment of $443,000 was due on December 31, 1974. In December negotiations were entered into for an 18-month extension of the due date and the Bank required as one of the conditions that Terrell-Brown & Company execute a note secured by a mortgage for $443,000. In a letter dated December 31, 1974, Terrell-Brown sent the Bank the requested mortgage and a check for $160,-000 drawn on the account of appellee Miami Mortgage Services, Inc., a totally owned subsidiary of Terrell-Brown. The letter specifically stated that if the Bank did not accept all of the terms and conditions of the extension request, then the $160,000 check was to be returned. The Bank kept the check, refused to extend the December 31, 1974 due date, declined demands for return of the $160,000 and sued all eight defaulting guarantors. Miami Mortgage Services was added by the trial judge as a party defendant1 and it counterclaimed for return of the $160,000 on the grounds that it was a complete stranger to the financial dealings between the parties and that it had paid the money to secure an 18-month extension for Terrell-Brown, but the Bank had neither granted the extension nor returned the money. The Bank argued that it had applied the check to the debt of the eight borrowers and that it was they who had breached the extension agreement by furnishing an invalid mortgage along with the $160,000 check. Subsequently, the trial judge entered summary final judgment ordering the Bank to return the $160,000 to Miami Mortgage Services, Inc. We affirm.
The letter of December 31, 1974 clearly stated that retention of the $160,000 check drawn on the account of Miami Mortgage Services was conditioned upon the Bank’s acceptance of Terrell-Brown’s extension request. The Bank having declined the request to extend the December 31 deadline became bound to return the check. See Citizens Bank of Ft. Myers v. First National Bank, 101 Fla. 908, 132 So. 478 (1931); Southern States Power Co. v. Pittman, 122 Fla. 758, 165 So. 893 (1936); Faircloth v. Kausch, 63 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1953) and 7 Fla.Jur. Contracts § 184 (1956).
Neither are we persuaded by the Bank’s argument that since Miami Mortgage Services is a stranger to the financial dealings between the parties, it must look to the individual borrowers for repayment of the $160,000 because payment of an instrument may be made or given by any person including one who is a stranger with the consent of the holder. Colonial Press of Miami, Inc. v. Sanders, 264 So. 2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Under the circumstances, Miami Mortgage Services, not being indebted to the Bank, cannot be required to contribute $160,000 for the debt of another. Affirmed.
. Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Bank of Ft. Myers v. First Nat. Bank, 132 So. 478 (Fla. 1931)
- Sholtz v. State, 122 Fla. 758 (Fla. 1936)
- Colonial Press OF Miami, Inc. v. Murray Sanders, 264 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Faircloth v. Kausch, 63 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1953)