Accord And Satisfaction

531 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 14 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Madison AT Soho II Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Devo Acquisition Enters., LLC
  198 So. 3d 1111· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-08-24 ·cited 2×
  A condominium association sued for unpaid assessments after depositing a partial payment check that the debtor claimed constituted accord and satisfaction. The court held that a recent legislative amendment to Florida's condominium assessment statute clarified the legislature's o
• Rewjb Dairy Plant Assocs. v. Bombardier Cap., Inc.
  152 So. 3d 21· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-10-29 ·cited 2×
  REWJB Dairy Plant Associates appeals from a trial court order granting additur and a directed verdict on its accord and satisfaction defense in a commercial lease dispute with Bombardier Capital. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues, finding the
• Marisela Otaola v. Cusano's Italian Bakery
  103 So. 3d 993· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-12-19 ·cited 2×
  In this wrongful death case, the court reversed a trial court's dismissal with prejudice, holding that a pre-suit settlement by Allstate (the tortfeasor's primary insurer) paying its policy limits without obtaining a release from the plaintiff did not constitute a complete settle
• State Rd. 7 Inv. Corp. v. Natcar Ltd. P'ship
  82 So. 3d 1013· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-08-17 ·cited 2×
  State Road 7 Investment Corp. appealed a final foreclosure judgment entered by summary judgment, arguing the trial court erred by granting judgment while a cross-claim against the City of Plantation regarding a disputed lien remained pending, by entering summary judgment on a dis
• ALL Real Est. Title Servs., Inc. v. Minqh Quang VUU and Hanh Luu Vuu
  67 So. 3d 260· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-11-17 ·cited 2×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a judgment holding a title company and attorney negligent for mistakenly preparing a mortgage satisfaction that, while erroneous, did not extinguish the lender's rights under the note because the satisfaction was unintentional and therefore subj
• Twin Oaks AT Southwood, LLC v. Summit Constructors, Inc.
  941 So. 2d 1263· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-11-22 ·cited 2×
  Twin Oaks appealed a trial court order dismissing its counterclaims and compelling arbitration, arguing the contractor waived its right to arbitration by filing suit on the Project Completion Agreement (PCA). The appellate court reversed, holding that the PCA was a modification o
• Delta Health Grp., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  459 F. Supp. 2d 1207· N.D. Fla.· 2006-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because they arose under the Medicare Act and were subject to the exclusive review provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(h), which requires administrative exhaustion.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc.
  895 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-02 ·cited 2×
  Allstate Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment requiring it to pay full PIP medical benefits rather than reduced preferred provider organization (PPO) rates. The court holds that insurers are not required to comply with Fla. Stat. § 627.736(10) to take PPO rate reductions,
• Lubowicki v. Oxford Res. Corp.
  697 So. 2d 924· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-07-23 ·cited 2×
  Lubowicki leased a car from Oxford Resources that was vandalized while in a repair shop. When Oxford sued for unpaid lease payments, Lubowicki claimed an accord and satisfaction agreement discharged the debt. The court reversed summary judgment because conflicting affidavits crea
• Collier v. OLD Dominion Ins. Co.
  647 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the final judgment for the insurer but reversed the award of attorney's fees based on the offer of judgment.
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Best Tel. Co., Inc.
  898 F. Supp. 868· S.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed tariff doctrine precludes the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim, but a material issue of fact exists regarding the amount owed.
• Trayco Inc. v. United States
  967 F.2d 97· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear the importer's claim for a penalty imposed by Customs, and that the importer was not estopped from seeking judicial relief by paying the penalty under protest. However, the court subsequently gra
• Mastor v. David Nelson Constr. Co.
  600 So. 2d 555· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-06-19 ·cited 2×
  Property owners and their corporation sued construction companies for allegedly faulty construction of a bowling alley. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, but the appellate court reversed, finding material factual disputes regarding acceptance and accord
• Atl. Dry Dock Corp. v. United States
  773 F. Supp. 335· M.D. Fla.· 1991-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a release provision in contract modifications barred claims for cumulative delay and disruption, but was ambiguous as to a cardinal change claim. The court also dismissed a misrepresentation claim for lack of admiralty jurisdiction.
• Alentino, Ltd. v. Chenson Enters., Inc.
  938 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove its accord and satisfaction defense because it did not validly accept the plaintiff's settlement offer. The court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
• Mahmoud Ziaee and John L. Sherlock v. Vest
  916 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of Plan 1 and its calculation of Plan 2 benefits, and that prejudgment interest should not be awarded on funds tendered by the employer. The court also vacated the award of statutory penalties and attorneys' fees,
• Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Folsom
  907 F.2d 1115· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that certain jury instructions constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial because they were confusing, misleading, or improperly emphasized one party's position.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Anthony Marina
  892 F.2d 1522· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that borrowers lacked standing to challenge the FDIC's receivership and that certain testimony regarding an accord and satisfaction was improperly excluded. The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on the prime rate issue.
• MacUrdy v. Sikov & Love, P.A.
  894 F.2d 818· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying Pennsylvania law to the fraud claim and in dismissing the contract claim without sufficient factual development regarding the fee-splitting agreement's compliance with professional responsibility rules.
• Aleksandrs v. Laurins
  889 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the tax court's decision, holding that the statute of limitations did not bar the Commissioner's amendment, the taxpayer's check did not constitute an accord and satisfaction, the fair market value of the shares was $1,000 each, and the underpayment of taxes wa
• Balun v. Tucci
  549 So. 2d 257· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-09-29 ·cited 2×
• In re Hogg v. Norwest Bank & Farmers Home Admin.
  877 F.2d 691· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's finding of no agreement that the check constituted full payment was not clearly erroneous, and thus affirmed the district court's decision.
• State Bank OF Springfield v. S. Mill Mushroom Sales, Inc.
  875 F.2d 158· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that South Mill did not breach the compromise agreement by demanding on an expired letter of credit or by stopping shipments due to Garden Fresh's non-payment, and that the Bank breached the agreement by failing to issue a revised letter of credit.
• Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Draper's EGG & Poultry Co., Inc.
  531 So. 2d 373· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-13 ·cited 2×
  This case involves a dispute over whether a public utility (JEA) could recover undercharges from a customer (Draper's) after a settlement agreement was reached, with the court disagreeing on the scope of that settlement.
• Hall v. Time Ins. Co.
  854 F.2d 440· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insured's negotiation of a premium refund check constituted an accord and satisfaction, settling the dispute and precluding recovery under the policy.
• Am. Gen. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mizell Reese and Barbara Reese
  853 F.2d 370· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance proceeds were properly awarded to the FmHA based on the doctrine of equitable reformation, and that the cancellation of mortgages did not affect this obligation. The court also held that the Reeses were not entitled to penalties or attorney's fee
• Moore v. Jarvis Enters., Inc.
  523 So. 2d 1233· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-04-20 ·cited 2×
  Property owners contracted with construction companies to remodel rental units. A dispute arose over contract performance and payment, and the trial court found an accord and satisfaction agreement that it deemed a complete defense to all six counts of the complaint. The appellat
• Mil-Spec Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
  835 F.2d 865· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 2×
  An oral agreement to modify a government contract is not a valid accord and satisfaction if it is not reduced to writing and signed by both parties as required by federal regulations.
• Infra-Pak (Dallas), Inc. v. Carlson Stapler & Shippers Supply, Inc.
  803 F.2d 862· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Carlson was entitled to quantum meruit recovery for assisting Infra-Pak in a direct sale, as the distributorship agreement did not cover such services, and the trial court did not err in calculating prejudgment interest.
• Hill v. A.O. Smith Corp.
  801 F.2d 217· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a general release signed by the plaintiffs did not bar claims for feed spoilage if the parties did not intend to cover such unknown issues, but waivers in subsequent extension agreements with the financing company were valid. The court also held that the statu
• Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc.
  799 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 2×
  Summary judgment is inappropriate when there is a genuine dispute as to the parties' intent regarding whether a partial payment constitutes full and final settlement of all claims.
• E & S Realty, Inc. v. Am. Equity Int'l Corp.
  478 So. 2d 1160· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-11-26 ·cited 2×
  Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for defendants on accord and satisfaction claim, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the plaintiff modified a restrictive endorsement on a settlement check with the defendants' consent.
• Barbara Fé Navarre v. Navarre
  438 So. 2d 186· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-09-26 ·cited 2×
  A former wife sought an accounting for expenditures she made on the marital home during her seven years of occupancy following divorce. The circuit court dismissed her claim, finding she had settled all accounts by signing disbursal instructions for equal split of sale proceeds.
• Cavalere v. Graham
  432 So. 2d 756· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting discovery of an insurance company's investigator's work product, as there was no compelling necessity and no bad faith claim existed.
• Lampsis Navigation Ltd. v. In a Cause of Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability
  694 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the overreaching and mutual mistake defenses, precluding summary judgment.
• Depositors Tr. Co. v. Slobusky
  692 F.2d 205· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a pretrial agreement not raised in the pleadings and did not err in finding the defendant liable on the note despite prior jury instructions that suggested exhaustion of claims against another party was r
• Myers v. Am. Fin. Sys. OF Decatur, Inc.
  615 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on an unambiguous accord and satisfaction, as parol evidence was necessary to determine if a meeting of the minds occurred.
• Geeslin v. Knight Bros., Inc.
  554 F.2d 865· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the judgment reforming the indemnity agreement and entering judgment for Knight Brothers should be affirmed, and alternatively, that the action brought on behalf of United against Knight Brothers must fail due to a prior accord and satisfaction.
• Moore Meats, Inc. v. Alterman Transp., Inc.
  301 So. 2d 143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-10-08 ·cited 2×
  Moore Meats, a common carrier, sued Alterman Transport for an unpaid shipping account. The trial court entered a directed verdict in Moore Meats' favor based on federal and state anti-discrimination statutes prohibiting carriers from deviating from established shipping rates, and
• Hall v. People TO People Health Found., Inc.
  493 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 2×·via Executory Accord
  The court held that the plaintiff abandoned the executory accord by failing to sign the release within a reasonable time, thus no valid settlement agreement existed.
• W. C. James, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  485 F.2d 22· 10th Cir.· 1973-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the contractor's waiver of damages for delays was valid and enforceable, and that the contract was not one of adhesion, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Intercontinental Leasing, Inc. v. Chester A. Anderson, M.D.
  410 F.2d 303· 10th Cir.· 1969-04-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Kansas long-arm statute applied to the individual partners, imposing joint and several liability under Kansas law, and upheld the trial court's damage calculations.
• Smith Canning & Freezing Co. v. Lloyd Krause, Inc.
  398 F.2d 128· 9th Cir.· 1968-07-19 ·cited 2×
  A contract carrier cannot recover amounts beyond the filed and approved rate, even if the parties colluded to operate at a lower rate, because the filed rate is the only lawful charge.
• Island Block Corp. v. Jefferson Constr. Overseas, Inc.
  349 F.2d 322· 3d Cir.· 1965-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that part performance and payment validated a contract despite the statute of frauds, and affirmed the award of damages for the buyer's counterclaim, but remanded for further findings on July shipment payment dates and potential compromise of a disputed claim.
• Cash v. Murphy
  339 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance or a motion for a new trial.
• Drake & Beemont Mut. AID Soc'y Against Fire & Lightning v. United States
  330 F.2d 548· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the mortgaging of corn to the Commodity Credit Corporation did not void the insurance coverage, and the endorsement of a check for other property did not constitute a release of the claim for the mortgaged corn.
• Merlin C. Hamilton and Lydia H. Hamilton v. The United States
  324 F.2d 960· Ct. Cl.· 1963-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a compromise agreement was valid despite procedural irregularities in its approval and recordation, as the statutory provisions were directory, not mandatory.
• Hotel Atlantis, Inc. v. Peerless Cas. Co.
  285 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1961-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insured failed to discover the employee's defalcations within the contractually required period, barring recovery on the first cause of action, and that the insurer's adjuster lacked authority to bind the insurer to a settlement on the second cause of acti
• Gen. Freight Transp. Co., Inc. v. Riss & Co., Inc.
  284 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1960-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's findings were not sufficiently comprehensive or supported by evidence to sustain the judgment for $11,011.55.
• Hoeppner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States for the use of Trautman & Shreve, Inc.
  273 F.2d 835· 10th Cir.· 1960-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a subcontractor's prompt notification of nonacceptance of a check tendered in full payment, coupled with efforts to return the check and negotiate, prevented an accord and satisfaction, even though the check was retained for a period.