Parol Evidence Rule

2,396 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Rotberg v. Dodwell & Co.
  152 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1945-11-27 ·cited 6×
  A general release, even if claims were contingent at its execution, bars those claims if the parties' intent to cover them is clear.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Mills
  146 F.2d 694· 4th Cir.· 1944-12-18 ·cited 6×
  Parol evidence is admissible to establish a resulting trust, even if it contradicts the deed, to show that a conveyance was not fraudulent as to creditors.
• Battles v. Braniff Airways, Inc.
  146 F.2d 336· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the claim for unpaid premiums and that the defendant was not bound by the prior assessment judgment because it was not a party by representation. The court affirmed the denial of recovery on both claims.
• N.Y. Cas. Co. v. Ford
  145 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the fidelity bond was a continuing obligation, and the insurer's maximum liability for any single employee's embezzlement was limited to the amount stated in the bond, regardless of annual premium payments.
• Patterson-Ballagh Corp. v. Byron Jackson Co.
  145 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1944-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the complex series of agreements constituted a single transaction, and the consideration for the entire deal, including the patent license, was sufficient and did not fail, even after one patent was found invalid.
• Ochs v. Weil
  142 F.2d 758· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 6×
  A written contract for the sale of real estate, when read in conjunction with related telegrams, can satisfy the Statute of Frauds even if the seller's name is not explicitly in the writing, provided the telegrams clearly identify the seller and authorize the broker to act.
• Arbuckle v. (american) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. of Ill.
  129 F.2d 791· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury was justified in finding the policy language covered the insured's use and garage of the car, as any ambiguity in the policy terms is resolved in favor of the insured.
• White v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  122 F.2d 770· 4th Cir.· 1941-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred recovery of most assets transferred to directors, but not the $1,009.33 item due to fraud/mistake and lack of discovery.
• McComb v. Hygeia Coca-Cola Bottling Works
  137 Fla. 260· Fla.· 1939-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of an employee's breach of contract claim arising from an alleged lifetime employment agreement. The court held that when a release of injury claims expressly states a specific monetary consideration as the "sole cons
• Williams v. Williams
  114 Fla. 733· Fla.· 1934-05-10 ·cited 6×
  A widow sought to disclaim provisions in her deceased husband's will and claim dower rights instead, but failed to file written notice of dissent within the statutory one-year period. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of her bill of complaint, holding that statutory di
• Johnston v. Cox
  114 Fla. 243· Fla.· 1934-03-09 ·cited 6×
  Johnston seeks specific performance of a contingency fee contract with the Coxes to clear title to their Orange County property, offering one-third interest in the land as compensation. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's cancellation of the contract, holding tha
• Supervisors, Inc. v. Russell
  101 Fla. 804· Fla.· 1931-06-06 ·cited 6×
  In this replevin action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for a receiver, holding that the trial court improperly restricted the plaintiff's evidence by limiting him to proof of rights derived from a written contract rather than allowing him to establish inde
• Palatka Abstract & Title Guar. Co. v. Haskell
  100 Fla. 1504· Fla.· 1930-12-17 ·cited 6×
  Palatka Abstract and Title Guarantee Company appeals a replevin judgment favoring E. E. Haskell, who claimed two abstract books and three chairs were his individual property rather than corporate property sold under a bill of sale. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that
• Winchester v. Anton Hak, Jr.
  98 Fla. 1071· Fla.· 1929-12-07 ·cited 6×
  In this action on a promissory note, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the payee because the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the maker's defense and in awarding attorney's fees without proper allegations and proof.
• Boyer Bros., Inc. v. The Miami Nat'l Bank
  90 Fla. 65· Fla.· 1925-06-24 ·cited 6×
  This case involves a promissory note where the defendant, Boyer Brothers, Inc., attempted to raise a defense based on a contemporaneous oral agreement. The court held that such an agreement could not be used to vary the terms of the written note.
• Bludworth v. Bray
  59 Fla. 437· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 6×
  A merchant sought to foreclose two mortgages on a farmer's crops. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure, holding that despite broad language in the mortgage documents, the mortgages were intended only to secure specific guano notes and not all future
• E. R. Bass and Others v. O'Berry
  59 Fla. 159· Fla.· 1910-01-01 ·cited 6×
  E. R. Bass and others sought to rescind promissory notes on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the number of cattle included in a bill of sale. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that parol evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation
• Smith v. Hope
  51 Fla. 541· Fla.· 1906-01-01 ·cited 6×
  Smith and Edwards appealed a decree dismissing their bill seeking to enforce an instrument against the Hopes as a contract rather than a mortgage. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the lower court's finding that the instrument was a mortgage
• Shiloh Christian Ctr. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.
  65 F.4th 623· 11th Cir.· 2023-04-13 ·cited 5×
  Under Florida law, the plain language of an insurance policy controls over extrinsic evidence of the parties' subjective intentions, and ambiguities are construed in favor of coverage.
• Aleman v. Gervas
  314 So. 3d 350· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-10-21 ·cited 5×
  This case involves a breach of contract dispute where the appellant argued the trial court misinterpreted a contractual provision regarding payment obligations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the interpretation of the contract language was reason
• Rabia Ardan Morris v. Winbar LLC
  273 So. 3d 176· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-04-09 ·cited 5×
  The law of the case doctrine does not preclude a trial court from determining whether a prescriptive easement is appurtenant or in gross when that issue was not actually decided in the prior appellate affirmance, and the trial court may reconsider the matter on remand to prevent
• Haggin v. Allstate Invs., Inc.
  264 So. 3d 951· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-01-16 ·cited 5×
  A landlord sued a guarantor for unpaid rent after a commercial lease was modified multiple times over 14 years, increasing from 1,400 to 2,720 square feet with rent rising to $5,428 monthly. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the landlord, holding that the
• Eli Villareal v. Eres
  128 So. 3d 93· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-09-18 ·cited 5×
  Eli Villareal appeals a judgment for personal injuries and wrongful death after a motor vehicle accident where his vehicle struck another vehicle from behind, pushing it into a moving train that killed a child. The key issue was whether a settlement had been reached when Villarea
• Vocelle & Berg, L.L.P. v. IMG Citrus, Inc.
  125 So. 3d 843· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-04-03 ·cited 5×
  Vocelle & Berg sought to enforce an assignment of escrow funds as security for legal fees against Meadows. The trial court found the assignment created only a security interest rather than an actual assignment based on extrinsic evidence, but the appellate court reversed, holding
• Univ. OF Miami v. Francois
  76 So. 3d 360· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-12-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a release and settlement agreement with an initial tortfeasor must clearly reserve a plaintiff's cause of action against a subsequent tortfeasor, or the plaintiff's claims will be barred by the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Because the settlement agreemen
• Topp, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp.
  483 F. Supp. 2d 1187· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-30 ·cited 5×
  The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to grant summary judgment on the oral distributorship agreement claims due to the Statute of Frauds, and also granted summary judgment on the tortious interference claim based on the economic loss rule.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Prof'l Transp., Inc.
  467 F. Supp. 2d 1333· M.D. Fla.· 2006-11-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the provision requiring parties to negotiate in good faith concerning contract modification was an unenforceable agreement to agree because essential terms were left open, and thus, CSX was entitled to summary judgment.
• Glover Distrib. Co., Inc. v. F.T.D.K., Inc.
  816 So. 2d 1207· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-05-24 ·cited 5×
  Glover Distributing Company appealed a judgment in favor of F.T.D.K. for breach of a commercial lease, contending the trial court erred in denying various defenses and excluding evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and the award of prejudgment interest, finding no
• Argonaut Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SWH Funding Corp.
  150 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that although a contractual relationship existed, the plaintiff's failure to satisfy all conditions precedent excused the defendant's performance, and thus summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate on all counts.
• Williamson v. Bertino
  685 So. 2d 93· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-01-02 ·cited 5×
  Angela Williamson signed a promissory note as 'Vice President, Phoenix Travel Int'l' without using language like 'by' or 'for' to indicate agency capacity. The court held that her signature form did not preclude, as a matter of law, a claim that she personally obligated herself o
• First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., N.A. v. Frumkin
  659 So. 2d 463· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-08-23 ·cited 5×
  The court held that parol evidence was admissible to resolve a patent ambiguity in the trust provisions regarding principal distributions.
• Barefoot v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Allstate Commercial Ins. Co.
  650 So. 2d 1036· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-02-07 ·cited 5×
  Barefoot appealed a workers' compensation judge's order denying his claim for benefits from a 1989 workplace accident, based on a settlement agreement from 1993 that allegedly resolved all pending claims. The court reversed, finding the settlement agreement ambiguous regarding wh
• First Cap. Income & Growth Funds v. Baumann
  616 So. 2d 163· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-03-30 ·cited 5×
  In this real estate contract dispute involving the purchase of a shopping center, the appellate court affirmed a jury verdict awarding the seller additional purchase price despite the purchaser's argument that an undefined contractual term "thereafter" should have precluded any r
• Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pac. Erectors, Inc.
  971 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the contract language was unambiguous and not reasonably susceptible to Pacific's interpretation, thus inadmissible parol evidence could not support Pacific's contract or fraud claims, nor Hartford's fraud claims.
• Gopher OIL Co., Inc. v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  955 F.2d 519· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of fraud and 100% liability for cleanup costs, but remanded for recalculation of attorney fees and determination of fraud damages.
• Kenneth R.M. Thompson, Kenneth R.M. Thompson, P.C. v. Paasche
  950 F.2d 306· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-29 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the fraud verdict and damages rulings, reversed the RICO verdict, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief against Miller but reversed the denial against Paasche.
• Computel, Inc. v. Emery AIR Freight Corp.
  919 F.2d 678· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a principal's ratification of an agent's action requires full knowledge or willful ignorance, and a standard office procedure of depositing checks does not automatically constitute willful ignorance.
• Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker
  915 F.2d 805· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Health-Chem's performance of the settlement agreement, which included paying an adjustment amount for stock sale proceeds, did not violate a restrictive covenant in its debenture indenture, and thus Baker was entitled to the adjustment amount.
• United States for Use & Benefit of E. Gulf, Inc. v. Metzger Towing, Inc.
  910 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 5×
  The court should have allowed recovery for standby time under the contract and the Miller Act, as the contract was ambiguous and standby time constitutes compensable labor or materials.
• Pralhad S. Jhaver v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
  903 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the contract between the parties was ambiguous, creating a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment.
• Monopoly Realty, Inc. v. World Bus. Brokers, Inc.
  562 So. 2d 387· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-05-29 ·cited 5×
  Monopoly Realty appeals a judgment requiring it to share a real estate commission with World Business Brokers under a co-brokerage agreement. The court affirms, holding that the written agreement was supported by adequate consideration (information about the property sale) and wa
• Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Tilley
  534 So. 2d 834· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-11-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding the contract ambiguous and in construing it against the drafter, as the contract's provisions could be reconciled to determine its unambiguous termination date.
• Hunter v. Tartan Constr. Co.
  522 So. 2d 77· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-02 ·cited 5×
  A guarantor remains fully liable under a guaranty agreement even when a co-guarantor fails to sign, absent clear contractual language or proven parol evidence conditioning the guarantor's obligation on all parties signing.
• Nevel v. Monteleone
  514 So. 2d 383· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-09-16 ·cited 5×
  Parol evidence is not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the terms of a complete and unambiguous written employment contract, and an employee who breaches such a contract by engaging in outside competing activities cannot use extrinsic evidence to excuse the breach.
• A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. The Florence Beef Co.
  785 F.2d 348· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to 'visual leanness' and trade custom, as it was irrelevant or contradicted express contract terms.
• Burten v. Milton Bradley Co.
  763 F.2d 461· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the disclosure agreement was ambiguous and did not, as a matter of law, bar the plaintiffs' trade secret misappropriation claim, allowing the jury verdict to stand.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. N. Bend Terminal Co.
  752 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that North Bend had no contractual duty under the collective bargaining agreement to continue funding the pension plan after its facility closed, and thus the plan administrator did not breach fiduciary duties.
• Chippas v. Midland Ins. Co.
  456 So. 2d 495· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-08-28 ·cited 5×
  Harry Chippas mortgaged his real property to Midland Insurance Company as collateral for a $500,000 bail bond securing his son's release pending trial in New Jersey. After his son was convicted and the original bail bond was discharged, Midland unilaterally posted a new $500,000
• Roundtree v. Smith
  448 So. 2d 1252· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the lease provisions were ambiguous and required a factual determination of the parties' intent, thus the complaint stated a sufficient cause of action.
• Holland v. State
  388 So. 2d 1080· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-09-25 ·cited 5×
  Landowners appealed a circuit court order dismissing their claim that a 1969 warranty deed conveying property to the State for road right-of-way purposes did not include subsurface oil and gas rights. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory form deed conveyed fee