Conditional Delivery

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

• Paradise Beach Homes, Inc v. S. Atl. Lumber Co., Inc.
  118 So. 2d 825· Fla. 1st DCA· 1960-03-17 ·cited 26×
  In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's exclusion of parol evidence that defendant had agreed to a conditional delivery of the promissory note and mortgage pending adjustment to reflect the true indebtedness owed. The c
• Miami Nat'l Bank v. Sobel
  198 So. 2d 841· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-05-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, filed after a foreclosure decree had been executed, failed to state a cause of action for damages or equitable relief based on defenses that could have been raised in the original foreclosure suit.
• Beach Keys, Inc. v. Girvin
  213 So. 2d 314· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-08-08 ·cited 12×
  Parol evidence is admissible to prove a condition precedent to the existence of a written mortgage, showing that the contract never became binding.
• Aughtry v. Keary
  112 Fla. 609· Fla.· 1933-11-10 ·cited 12×
  This case concerns whether a promissory note, held in escrow and subject to specific conditions, constitutes a valid delivery allowing the payee to sue on the note. The court held that the note was not effectively delivered, thus barring a suit on the note itself.
• Ketchian v. F.P. Concannon and Helena Concannon
  435 So. 2d 394· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a condition precedent to the promissory note's effectiveness, as such evidence does not violate the parol evidence rule.
• Woods v. Thompson
  159 Fla. 112· Fla.· 1947-06-20 ·cited 9×
  Ray Woods, a car seller in Texas, brought a replevin action to recover an automobile after a complex transaction involving fraud. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant-purchaser, holding that a bona fide purchaser for value is protected a
• Zewadski v. Dyal
  78 Fla. 109· Fla.· 1919-07-11 ·cited 9×
  Zewadski sued to cancel a mortgage satisfaction document that defendants had recorded in violation of their agreement to hold it pending full payment of consideration. The court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that equity may cancel a conditional satisfaction of mor
• Greenebaum Mortg. Co. v. Town & Garden Assocs.
  385 F.2d 347· 7th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the loan delivery was conditional.
• Yoder v. Nutrena Mills, Inc.
  294 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1961-09-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of written contracts when the alleged condition precedent is addressed within the contract itself, thus affirming the summary judgment.
• Kehle v. Modansky
  696 So. 2d 493· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-07-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that lack of knowledge is not a defense to a civil worthless check claim, and waiver/conditional delivery defenses must be pleaded. However, the treble damages provision of the worthless check statute does not apply to a party other than the maker of the check.
• Little River Bank & Tr. Co. v. N. Am. Mortg. Corp.
  186 So. 2d 263· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-05-04 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed a trial court judgment allowing a bank to recover on a note against a mortgage corporation, but permitting a setoff for interest paid on related notes. The case clarifies when parol evidence can establish a contemporaneous agreement to offset credits against a
• Jockmus v. Claussen & Knight, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 1930-08-06 ·cited 3×
  Defendant executed three promissory notes to Shoreland Corporation as part of a property purchase contract; Shoreland Corporation pledged the notes to plaintiff as security for a debt, and later became insolvent and unable to perform the underlying contract. The court held that k
• 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.
• Guetzloe v. Rowell
  734 So. 2d 467· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-05-07
• Roemelmeyer v. Falin (In re 6801 Collins Ave.
  S.D. Fla.· 1989-02-08
• SUN Bank OF Tampa BAY v. Bryan
  527 So. 2d 290· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-06-22
  Sun Bank, as personal representative of an estate, improperly paid a $85,000 real estate commission from estate assets for a listing agreement that was never completed and conditionally delivered. The trial court ordered repayment to the estate, and the appellate court affirmed,
• Kleckner v. The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  822 F.2d 1316· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-30
  The court held that the insurance policy was not effective upon delivery because the insured had applied for alternate policies and had not yet made a selection. The selection and premium payment, made after the insured knew he had cancer, constituted a breach of his representati
• Billingsley v. MacKay
  382 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-05
  The court held that the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and thus the defense of failure of consideration was invalid against him.
• Mastry v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co.
  185 So. 2d 481· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-02-25
  The court held that the written agreement between the attorney and the defendants, which clearly stated the notes were for services rendered, estopped the defendants from claiming a contemporaneous oral agreement for conditional payment or failure of consideration.
• Grant v. Guelli
  122 So. 2d 422· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-08-10
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's affidavit and deposition admitted the debt but failed to establish a valid affirmative defense of conditional delivery or a collateral agreement under the existing ple
• Frank M. Chichester in Bankr. of Est. of S. A. Willen Co. v. Union Bank & Tr. Co. OF LOS Angeles
  240 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1957-01-15
  The District Court correctly reversed the Referee's order, finding the chattel mortgage was conditionally delivered and effective only upon payment.
• Ashland OIL & Ref. Co. v. Carlton Beal
  224 F.2d 731· 5th Cir.· 1955-07-22
  The court held that Ashland was estopped from denying its financing agreement with Beal was in accordance with Beal's letter outlining the terms, modifying the lower court's judgment that reformed the operating agreement.