Joint Obligors

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

• In re Barnett. Barnett v. Jaspan
  124 F.2d 1005· 2d Cir.· 1942-01-07 ·cited 95×
  The court should not decide issues not properly appealed or abandoned by the appellant.
• Brown v. Marquette Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  686 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-18 ·cited 46×
  Interest rate increases on a mortgage, implemented under a variable rate provision, constitute new transactions requiring Truth in Lending Act disclosures unless specific conditions are met, and the 1980 amendment to the TILA limits recovery for violations to a single penalty per
• Lopez v. Lopez
  90 So. 2d 456· Fla.· 1956-11-07 ·cited 36×
  A surviving spouse is not entitled to contribution from the deceased spouse's estate for a purchase money mortgage executed by both on property held as an estate by the entirety.
• Clayman v. Goodman Props., Inc.
  518 F.2d 1026· D.C. Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the petition for rehearing was denied because the option agreement's requirement for the optionees to assume half the mortgage debt was a joint obligation, and this condition was not met by only one optionee assuming the debt.
• Meckler v. Weiss
  80 So. 2d 608· Fla.· 1955-05-27 ·cited 29×
  Meckler and Weiss were cotenants who jointly executed a mortgage on property. After Meckler paid the entire mortgage debt without reimbursement from Weiss, he sought to enforce the mortgage as an equitable lien against Weiss's interest for her proportionate share. The trial court
• Helms v. Holmes
  129 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1942-06-15 ·cited 26×
  A bankrupt who fails to plead a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense in a state court action on a discharged debt waives that defense, and a subsequent default judgment is valid and enforceable.
• Mason v. Gen. Fin. Corp. OF Va.
  542 F.2d 1226· 4th Cir.· 1976-10-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that displaying the Virginia 'Contract Rate' alongside federal disclosures without proper segregation and identification violates the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, as it creates confusion and undermines the Act's purpose of uniform consumer credit disclosu
• Greenleaf v. Safeway Trails, Inc.
  140 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1944-02-07 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction based on the non-joinder of a joint obligor, and that the condition precedent of an audit was waived.
• Herby Berryhill and Lucille Berryhill v. Rich Plan OF Pensacola
  578 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 12×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion.
• Herrera v. First N. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  805 F.2d 896· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the cross-appeal was timely filed and that the defendant violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by failing to make the annual percentage rate disclosure more conspicuous than other terms. It also held that only one statutory penalty is recoverable by joint obligors
• Wood v. Meier
  218 F.2d 419· 5th Cir.· 1955-01-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are statutory and several, not contractual and joint, thus a judgment against one obligor does not bar action against others.
• Tradewell Foods, Inc. v. N.Y. Credit Men's Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
  179 F.2d 567· 2d Cir.· 1950-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the debtor corporation was not liable for damages for breach of contract because the failure to confirm the arrangement plan, which was a condition precedent to the sale, was due to the personal failure of its officers to supply necessary funds, not the debtor
• Allstate Ins. v. McCranie
  716 F. Supp. 1440· S.D. Fla.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the homeowner's insurance policies did not provide coverage for claims arising from the insured's sexual molestation of a minor, as the acts were intentional and excluded by the policy, and this exclusion applied even to claims against a co-insured for neglige
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Consol. Mortg. & Fin. Corp.
  805 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations applies to commercial loans and that Consolidated's acknowledgments of debt prevented the statute from barring the FDIC's claims. However, Suro's liability as a guarantor requires further factual development.
• Ferrall v. Bradford
  2 Fla. 508· Fla.· 1849-01-01 ·cited 7×
  In this 1849 Florida case, the court addresses whether a judgment obtained against one joint obligor on a bond bars subsequent suit against other joint obligors, and whether fraudulent representations by defendants that induced plaintiff's attorney to sue only one defendant can d
• Allstate Ins. Co. & Delores Thomason Cooley v. Briggs
  355 So. 2d 499· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the venue privilege granted by statute is personal to the defendant and cannot be denied due to the joinder of an insurer, and that the defendant did not waive this privilege.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. & Liquidator of S. Bank of St. Petersburg v. Playford
  217 So. 2d 584· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-01-10 ·cited 5×
  The FDIC, as receiver of a bank, appealed a summary judgment that exonerated Mrs. Playford from liability on a jointly executed note. The court reversed, holding that when a wife jointly executes a note and the lender disburses proceeds jointly to both spouses, the wife is bound
• Consol. Naval Stores Co. v. McNeill
  60 Fla. 38· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for $216.00 in favor of McNeill against Consolidated Naval Stores Company for unpaid wages for services rendered from April 6 to December 28, 1908. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that certain testimony should have been e
• Daly v. Marion Cnty.
  265 So. 3d 644· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-11-27 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice appealed a trial court's order requiring it to refund overpayments made by counties into the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund. The court affirmed, holding that section 985.686 imposes a mandatory duty to reconcile and re
• Mhoon v. Singleton
  503 So. 2d 374· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-13 ·cited 4×
  In this divorce-related appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of a former husband's complaint seeking indemnification or contribution from his ex-wife for a mortgage debt on property awarded to her in the dissolution. The court held that the unambiguous settlement agreement pr
• DuBREUIL v. Stevenson
  369 F.2d 690· 5th Cir.· 1966-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appellants waived their right to raise the joint obligor defense by failing to present it to the trial court and by stipulating that only factual issues remained. The court also found the attorney's fees award excessive.
• Trans Pac. Corp. v. S. Seas Enters., Ltd.
  291 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1961-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the testimony and records of absent parties do not automatically make them indispensable parties to a breach of contract action for damages.
• Universal Credit Co. & A. E. Walsh v. Beckwith
  126 Fla. 865· Fla.· 1937-01-18 ·cited 4×
  This case addresses whether one defendant in a joint obligation lawsuit can abate the action based on a venue privilege that applies only to them. The court held that such a plea must be made by all defendants jointly.
• Nelson v. Ziegfeld
  100 Fla. 1433· Fla.· 1930-12-09 ·cited 4×
  Nellie M. Kearns Nelson sued F. Ziegfeld to recover on promissory notes secured by a mortgage on Palm Beach County property that Ziegfeld had assumed when he purchased the land. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Ziegfeld, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a
• In re the Arb. between Tehran-Berkeley Civil & Env't Eng'rs v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCARTHY-Stratton
  816 F.2d 864· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the petition to compel arbitration and granting the stay without an evidentiary hearing, as the contract's language was ambiguous regarding whether TAMS or the TAMS-AFFA entity was the party to the agreement.
• Matthews v. Wood
  485 So. 2d 472· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in dissolving a prejudgment writ of garnishment after an extensive hearing where substantial questions were raised about the grounds for the writ.
• Donnie A. LeBLANC v. Petco, Inc.
  647 F.2d 617· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer was entitled to full reimbursement of its compensation lien and that the trial court erred in reducing the lien based on a waiver of subrogation against one joint obligor or for attorney's fees.
• DeLONG v. Sid Larkin and Margaret P. Larkin
  208 So. 2d 830· Fla.· 1968-04-03 ·cited 2×
  In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a deficiency decree against a married woman by holding that a joint purchase money mortgage obligation is not protected by the constitutional provision limiting liability of a married woman's separate property fo
• Wakine Rouhib v. The Mich. Bank
  345 F.2d 782· 6th Cir.· 1965-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The failure to assert a bankruptcy discharge as a defense in a state court action constitutes a waiver of that defense, precluding the debtor from later seeking ancillary jurisdiction in federal court to enforce the discharge.
• Mack Indus. Div. OF Hollywood Land Co., Inc. v. Frank J. Baker Gen. Contractor, Inc.
  456 So. 2d 1326· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-10-10 ·cited 1×
  Mack Industries supplied materials to a construction project and obtained a judgment against the general contractor, Frank J. Baker, for non-payment. When Mack released its mechanic's lien against the property owner's land in bankruptcy, the contractor moved for satisfaction of t
• Brackin TIE v. McLARTY Farms, Inc.
  704 F.2d 585· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that joint obligors are not indispensable parties in a breach of contract action, and thus the trial court did not err in proceeding without joining a co-lessee whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
• Corcoran v. Martin
  202 So. 2d 16· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-08-11 ·cited 1×
  In this promissory note collection action, the court addresses whether a creditor can obtain separate judgments against joint and several obligors after first obtaining judgment against a co-maker. The court holds that individual judgments against the Corcorans are proper, but re
• Se. Dev. P'rs, LLC v. St. Johns Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-10
  The court held that Day Late Enterprises, Inc. was misjoined as a party and was dismissed from the action because it was not a necessary party under Rule 19 and did not meet the criteria for permissive joinder under Rule 20.
• Pratt v. United States
  340 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1964-12-28
  The court held that the seaman's prior in personam judgment did not preclude him from pursuing in rem claims against the vessel for unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure, and that the covenant not to sue the insurer did not bar these claims.
• In re Corman
  310 F.2d 932· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-23
  The court held that a compromise agreement with a co-obligor, which expressly reserved rights against the bankrupt, did not entirely discharge the bankrupt's obligations.
• Edward Corp. OF Miami v. David M. Woolin & SON, Inc.
  113 So. 2d 252· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-06-25
  Edward Corporation sued David M. Woolin & Son, Inc. for payment under an order confirmation allegedly signed by Woolin's company. The trial court dismissed the complaint as a matter of law, finding the contract created a joint obligation between Woolin's company and the principal
• Alderman v. Camilla Puleston
  156 Fla. 731· Fla.· 1945-07-10