Accommodation Party

25 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Fletcher Scott v. The Nat'l City Bank of Tampa
  Fla.· 1931-11-30 ·cited 27×
  Scott brought a conversion action against National City Bank of Tampa for selling 300 shares of stock without authorization. The bank admitted selling the stock but claimed it had authority under the promissory note and applied proceeds to Scott's debt, leaving a balance due. The
• Fewox v. The Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co.
  249 So. 2d 55· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-06-01 ·cited 22×
  A guarantor of loans remains liable even after severing his interest in the borrowing corporation and is not discharged by the bank's extensions of the due dates, because the guarantee was a continuing guaranty of the underlying loans (not merely the notes) and the guarantor did
• Fletcher Scott v. The Nat'l City Bank of Tampa
  107 Fla. 810· Fla.· 1931-11-30 ·cited 20×
  Fletcher Scott, an accommodation indorser on a promissory note executed by Scott Grocery Company to National City Bank of Tampa, sought equitable relief against the bank and an assignee for the benefit of creditors. The Florida Supreme Court held that Scott, as a surety, had suff
• Sw. Fla. Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Klaus Schirow and Marita J. Schirow
  388 So. 2d 338· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Fla. Stat. § 673.606(1) applies to a co-maker of a note, allowing discharge for unjustifiable impairment of collateral.
• Gehrig v. RAY
  332 So. 2d 703· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-07 ·cited 9×
  In this appeal from summary judgment on a promissory note, the court reversed, holding that the defendants' allegations of being accommodation makers and the accommodated party relationship raise genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment, even though oral evi
• S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass'n, Inc. v. Schmitz
  565 So. 2d 827· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-08-02 ·cited 8×
  S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Association appealed a trial court order awarding costs and attorney fees to defendants after a jury verdict in the Association's favor on some claims but against it on others. The appellate court affirmed the costs award but reversed most of the attorney fee
• Roe R. Black v. Denver United States Nat'l Bank
  362 F.2d 38· 8th Cir.· 1966-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the payment by a third party of a note did not, as a matter of law, constitute an accord and satisfaction for the original debtor's note, as the intent of the parties was not conclusively established.
• Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Ben-Frieda Corp.
  256 So. 2d 218· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-01-04 ·cited 6×
  Coplan Pipe & Supply Co. sued to foreclose a mortgage secured by promissory notes executed by Dade Plumbing and endorsed by Ben-Frieda Corporation. The trial court entered judgment for Ben-Frieda, ordering cancellation of the mortgage. The appellate court affirmed, holding that C
• Erick A. Palma, M.D. v. S. Fla. Pulmonary & Critical Care, LLC
  307 So. 3d 860· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-09-16 ·cited 5×
  Physicians who signed promissory notes for their medical practice's line of credit were found to be accommodation indorsers, not directly liable to the practice for the outstanding debt. The court held that the practice, as the accommodated party, could not seek contribution or u
• Equilease Corp. v. Williams Steel Indus., Inc.
  452 So. 2d 40· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-05-10 ·cited 4×
  Equilease appealed a judgment denying recovery on a lease and personal guaranty executed by Williams Steel Industries and its president S.W. Williams. The lower court found a failure of consideration defense because the leased lathe was never delivered to the lessee but instead s
• Borden v. Sinskey
  530 F.2d 478· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a wife's accommodation signatures on loans and stock pledges, without knowledge of her husband's fraudulent schemes, were insufficient to impose liability upon her for his misconduct.
• Giblin v. Beeler
  396 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1968-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgments notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff on Note 2 and Note 5, and that the jury's verdicts on these notes should be reinstated.
• Ebeling v. Lowry
  203 So. 2d 506· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court considered whether a party who signed a negotiable promissory note after it was in default, as an accommodation to the original debtor, was primarily liable as a maker or secondarily liable.
• Ruff v. Cooper
  124 Fla. 816· Fla.· 1936-07-16 ·cited 4×
  This case reviews a judgment for a wife, who was a free dealer, sued on a note she signed jointly with her husband. The court considered whether her signature, made for her husband's accommodation and without new consideration, was validly binding on her separate property.
• Towner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  182 F.2d 903· 2d Cir.· 1950-06-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the estate was not entitled to a deduction for the full amount of the note because the decedent, acting as an accommodation party, did not take definitive action to make a gift to her son or release him from his obligation to reimburse the estate under New Yor
• Colo. Nat'l Bank OF Denver v. Bohm
  286 F.2d 494· 9th Cir.· 1961-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that parol evidence is admissible to show lack of consideration for a promissory note between the original parties, even if it appears there was some benefit or detriment.
• Brocato v. Brocato
  74 So. 2d 58· Fla.· 1954-07-20 ·cited 2×
  A wife who jointly executed a purchase-money mortgage with her husband and later acquired the note and mortgage sued to foreclose against her husband. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that a wife cannot enforce a mortgage she signed on property held by both s
• Polo v. Marcela Munoz Correa
  645 So. 2d 144· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-16
  Appellants Julio Eduardo Polo and Brandford Investments of Florida challenged a summary judgment in favor of Marcela Munoz Correa, who sought to collect on replacement promissory notes as an assignee. The court affirmed, holding that Correa qualified as an accommodation party und
• Crawford v. 733 SAN Mateo Co.
  854 F.2d 1220· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-17
  The court held that a surety who consents in the original note to extensions or accommodations remains liable even if the note is subsequently modified without their express consent to the specific changes.
• FOX v. Perry
  382 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-04-08
  Foxes brought suit against Perrys on a $500,000 promissory note. Perrys defended by invoking a May 1976 agreement allegedly requiring the Foxes to look solely to Lo-Te Development Corporation for satisfaction. The court reversed summary judgment, finding genuine issues of materia
• The BAY Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Mason
  349 So. 2d 810· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-09-12
  An accommodation party who consents in the original note to extensions without notice is not discharged by subsequent extensions of the note.
• In re Appliance Packing & Warehousing Corp.
  475 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-20
  The court held that the New York Negotiable Instruments Law, not the Uniform Commercial Code, governed the 1964 note, and Appliance was not an accommodation party but a co-maker, entitled only to contribution.
• Mrs. Thelma Akana Harrison v. M.R.A., Ltd.
  278 F.2d 539· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-13
  The court held that the appellant, as an accommodation co-maker, was liable on the promissory note because the corporation, the principal maker, received valid consideration for its promise, and this consideration was given in reliance on the appellant's signature.
• Boyd v. City State Bank
  210 F.2d 161· 10th Cir.· 1954-02-03
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss for lack of diversity and correctly directed a verdict for the bank, as the maker of the check was liable to the bank as a holder for value, even if he was an accommodation party.
• Hopkins v. Commercial Bank
  64 Fla. 310· Fla.· 1912-06-01
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the Commercial Bank in an action on a promissory note, holding that the named payee's endorsement as an endorser (with waiver of demand, notice, and protest) does not constitute him a joint maker, and that parol evidence cannot be u