MAVIS Y. NORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
MONROE STEWART, 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.
Mrs. Norris appeals a directed verdict against her on a promissory note she co-signed with her deceased husband. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Mrs. Norris failed to establish duress because there was no showing that the creditor's threats of legal action were unlawful or wrongful.
The court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that Mrs. Norris failed to establish duress because duress requires a showing that the act compelling obedience is unlawful or wrongful, and there was no showing that Stewart's intimations were illegal.
[1] A party seeking to avoid a contract based on duress must demonstrate that the act compelling obedience was unlawful or wrongful.
[2] A threat to report a debtor to the state attorney for misappropriation of funds does not constitute unlawful or wrongful conduct sufficient to establish duress.
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“Duress, however, requires a showing the act of the party compelling obedience of another is unlawful or wrongful.”
Establishes the legal standard for duress requiring unlawful or wrongful compulsion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe creditor Stewart advanced $15,000 unsecured to Mr. Norris for investment in real property. Mr. Norris misappropriated the funds to make farm payme…
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 Promissory Note Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mrs. Norris’ appeal challenges the propriety of the trial court’s order directing a verdict against her and in favor of Monroe Stewart, the holder of a $15,000.00 promissory note signed by her and her now deceased husband. We agree with the trial court that Mrs. Norris failed to establish she was duressed into executing the note.
Stewart had advanced $15,000.00, unsecured and without a written instrument, for Mr. Norris to invest in real property. The uncontradicted testimony shows Mr. Norris converted the monies in order to make payments on his farm where he and his wife resided. Mrs. Norris knew nothing of the business deal nor of her husband’s conversion. When Stewart learned of the misappropriation, he visited the Norris home three times to discuss repayment. Mrs. Norris testified she once overheard Stewart talking to her husband in an upset manner, indicating that should he not get satisfaction, he would take the matter to the state attorney. Eventually, Mr. Norris had his wife type a promissory note and both signed it. Mrs. Norris testified she signed the note because, having overheard the conversation with Stewart and having discussed the matter with her husband, she didn’t want her husband to go to jail. This suit was then brought on the unpaid note.
Summary judgment was granted against the estate of Mr. Norris and that determination is not here on appeal. We are only concerned with Mrs. Norris’ liability as a co-signer of the note. She argues the general law in Florida is that a wife may avoid a conveyance obtained by express or implied threats of imprisonment of her husband, citing Burton v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469, 42 So. 849 (1907); Sheldon v. Wilfore, 136 Fla. 312, 186 So. 508 (1939); Loew v. Friedman, 80 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1955).
Duress, however, requires a showing the act of the party compelling obedience of another is unlawful or wrongful. Corporación Peruana de Aeropuertos y Aviacion v. Boy, 180 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2nd DCA 1965). There was no showing by Mrs. Norris that Stewart’s intimations were illegal. See Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163, 81 So. 154 (1919); Commercial Credit Co. v. Davis, 103 Fla. 519, 137 So. 688 (1931); Tyler v. Hill Bros., 127 Fla. 419, 173 So. 147 (1937), and Corporación Peruana, supra.
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERYIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franklin v. Wallack, 576 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…n which the court held (in the absence of an allegation of mental or emotional weakness) that the threat to prosecute another would not excuse an innocent signer when the threat was not malicious. This case is almost identical to Norris v. Stewart, 350 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1978). Stewart had advanced $15,000 to Norris which Norris immediately converted. On learning this, Stewart, in the presence of Mrs. Norris, threatened to prosecute Norris. In order to prevent…1 / 2
-
Gribbin v. Gribbin, 499 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…wrongful; Fuller, et al v. Roberts, Fla. 1895, 35 Fla. 110, 17 So. 359, and the burden of proof to show duress and the illegality of the embargo is on the Defendant. Hough v. Menses, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 410. Id. at 505. See also Norris v. Stewart, 350 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and other cases cited therein. In a setting of criminal law, the supreme court, in discussing “extreme duress,” as expressed in section 921.141(6)(e), Florida Statutes (1981) said: “Duress” is often used in the vernacular to de…
-
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Marlar, 761 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1985)…mit in their brief before this Court that they cannot prove the defense of duress unless they can establish that “the act of the party compelling the obedience of another was unlawful or wrongful.” (Appellant’s brief, p. 35 citing Norris v. Stewart, 350 So. 2d 31 (1st D.C.A. 1977) ; cert. denied 362 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1978) . There is no admissible evidence in the record or otherwise proffered to show that execution of the second note was, as the defendants assert, procured by duress. We therefore affirm the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Commercial Bank of Jasper, 77 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1919)
- Corporacion Peruana de Aeropuertos y Aviacion Comercial v. BOY, 180 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Loew v. Friedman, 80 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1955)
- Burton v. McMillan, 52 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1906)
- Tyler v. Hill Bros., Inc., 127 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1937)
- E. R. Sheldon for Morris Plan Co. of St. Petersburg v. Wilfore, 136 Fla. 312 (Fla. 1939)
- Commercial Credit Co. v. Davis, 103 Fla. 519 (Fla. 1931)
- Herman v. Armstrong Cork & Insulation Co., 103 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1931)