Parol Evidence Rule

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

• Bd. of Com'rs of Okla. Cnty. v. Russell
  174 F.2d 778· 10th Cir.· 1949-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A deed condition requiring erection and use of buildings for a specific purpose does not necessitate perpetual maintenance; initial erection and use for a reasonable period fulfills the condition.
• Am. Republics Corp. v. Houston Oil Co. of Tex.
  173 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1949-03-30 ·cited 4×
• Spoor v. Q. & C. Co.
  162 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1947-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the assignment of patent royalties was valid and enforceable against the defendant, and that the plaintiffs' action was governed by the ten-year statute of limitations.
• Jackman (Rice v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
  145 F.2d 945· 3d Cir.· 1944-11-29 ·cited 4×
  A handwritten memorandum, along with a letter and the beneficiary's acquiescence, can sufficiently establish an express trust of life insurance proceeds, even if the beneficiaries are not explicitly named in a formal will.
• Matthew v. Moncrief
  135 F.2d 645· D.C. Cir.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that where a joint savings account agreement, signed by both parties, clearly expresses an intention to create a joint ownership with survivorship, parol evidence cannot be used to contradict this written intent absent fraud or mistake.
• Gardenia Ests. v. Grove Land & Timber Co.
  104 Fla. 284· Fla.· 1932-02-18 ·cited 4×
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant may assert an equitable counterclaim for reformation of the mortgage instrument based on mutual mistake, even when the defendant's answer sets forth facts that would support such reformation as a gr
• Burks v. Langston
  102 Fla. 155· Fla.· 1931-06-24 ·cited 4×
  In this contract dispute, Amanda Burks sued E. C. Langston to recover money he received for paying her property taxes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that Burks failed to establish her claim because her declaration did not allege
• Roberts v. Firman Smith
  72 Fla. 537· Fla.· 1916-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court judgment, granting a new trial due to the probable loss of crucial original orders related to a land sale, aiming to prevent injustice.
• George v. Drawdy
  56 Fla. 303· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 4×
  In this contract dispute, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence regarding the number of cattle included in a real estate and personal property sale contract, and because the plaintiff failed to
• Dickson v. Gamble
  16 Fla. 687· Fla.· 1878-06-01 ·cited 4×
  In this 1878 Florida case, the court reversed a judgment for a tax collector who sued to recover a balance on a promissory note given for unpaid taxes. The court held that a tax collector lacks legal authority to sue in his individual name for taxes and that the declaration faile
• Jhackelin Martinez v. Bustamante
  432 So. 3d 76· Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-03-25 ·cited 3×
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's decision to disregard a provision in a premarital agreement that granted both spouses the right to occupy the marital domicile upon divorce. The court found the provision patently ambiguous and unenforceable.
• Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche S.R.L. Societa Unipersonale
  2024 WL 663654· S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the parties' dispute arising from the yacht construction contract, including claims related to the Cannes Boat Show, must be arbitrated in London pursuant to the contract's arbitration clause.
• Bowein v. Sherman
  374 So. 3d 895· Fla. 6th DCA· 2023-11-17 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment for specific performance, finding that a sales contract for real property was void due to a patent ambiguity regarding the subject matter. The contract contained conflicting descriptions of the property, making it unenforceable.
• Avant Design Grp., Inc. v. Aquastar Holdings, LLC
  351 So. 3d 62· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-10-12 ·cited 3×
  Aquastar Holdings purchased a condominium unit and hired Avant Design Group to administer the build-out under a contract providing for cost-plus pricing with a 20% administrative fee. When Aquastar became concerned about mounting costs and Avant's refusal to disclose vendor invoi
• Walsh v. Abate
  336 So. 3d 50· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-03-23 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a specific performance claim, finding that the email and text negotiations did not constitute a binding contract under the statute of frauds. The court also affirmed the dissolution of the lis pendens.
• Advanzeon Solutions, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex. rel. Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs.
  321 So. 3d 911· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-06-01 ·cited 3×
  This case concerns whether a contract between a health plan and its network provider/claims processor required the plan to continue paying administrative fees after the contract was terminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the contract did
• Teryn Beardall Thompson O/b/o R.O.B. v. Johnson
  308 So. 3d 250· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-12-03 ·cited 3×
  The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment awarding life insurance proceeds to the decedent's parents, holding that the plain and unambiguous language of the insurance policy entitled the proceeds to the decedent's biological child, notwithstanding the deceden
• Hollinger v. Hollinger
  292 So. 3d 537· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-03-19 ·cited 3×
  John D. Hollinger appealed a partial summary judgment that invalidated his receipt of two shares of Rex Engineering Corporation stock gifted by his father, holding the gift violated a Buy-Sell Agreement. The court reversed, finding a disputed issue of material fact as to whether
• Waveblast Watersports II, Inc. v. Uh-Pompano, LLC
  291 So. 3d 657· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-03-11 ·cited 3×
  A lease that conditions its termination on an uncertain event (demolition of property) lacks sufficient definiteness of term and creates a tenancy at will, which may be terminated by either party without notice of breach. Accordingly, claims for breach of lease, conspiracy, and t
• World-Class Talent Experience, Inc. v. Giordano
  293 So. 3d 547· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-03-11 ·cited 3×
  The Second Stock Purchase Agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration because the same consideration ($50,000) was used for both the original and second agreements. The court therefore lacked grounds to dissolve the corporation under section 607.1430(2) because the David
• Morrison v. Morrison
  247 So. 3d 604· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-05-11 ·cited 3×
  When a marital settlement agreement contains a latent ambiguity regarding the meaning of "inheritance funds received," the court must apply contract interpretation principles and consider parol evidence of the parties' intent, not statutory construction principles used to interpr
• Sciame v. Sciame
  215 So. 3d 190· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-04-05 ·cited 3×
  In a postdissolution enforcement proceeding, the trial court interpreted a pension distribution provision in the parties' marital settlement agreement and required the former husband to elect survivor benefits to secure the former wife's award. The appellate court affirmed the in
• Daria Pastouhkova Gogoleva v. Soffer
  187 So. 3d 268· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-02-17 ·cited 3×
  Gogoleva appeals orders dismissing her complaint against defendants for fraudulent inducement regarding a settlement release of a helicopter crash that killed her husband. The court affirms dismissal of her rescission claim due to indispensable parties but reverses dismissal of h
• Whiting v. Whiting
  160 So. 3d 921· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-02-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the interpretation of the guardianship order, precluding summary judgment.
• Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Baker
  152 So. 3d 86· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-11-21 ·cited 3×
  Markel American Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of its motion for protective order, which would have prevented depositions of its lead counsel and company representative. The appellate court held that filing a reformation action and making sta
• Eldridge v. Eldridge
  147 So. 3d 1048· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-08-29 ·cited 3×
  The trial court erred in reclassifying temporary alimony payments as corporate distributions and in awarding the former wife one-half of shareholder distributions from the marital business during the interim period, as the parties' settlement agreement and judgment established th
• O'Neill v. Scher
  997 So. 2d 1205· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-12-24 ·cited 3×
  Sandra O'Neill appealed from a trial court order enforcing a settlement agreement with her brother Richard Scher regarding their father's estate and ordering her to execute a general release. The appellate court affirmed the enforcement of the settlement agreement but reversed th
• Rice v. Rice
  499 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the blank warranty deeds signed in December 2004, and the subsequently filled-in deeds from February 2005, were void ab initio because they lacked essential information and did not comply with the statute of frauds and deed execution formalities.
• Sunset Pointe AT Silver Lakes Assocs., Ltd. v. Vargas
  881 So. 2d 12· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-06-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that oral statements contradicting a written contract are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, even if claimed as inducement.
• Nichols v. State Farm Mut.
  851 So. 2d 742· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-06-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that insurers may recover attorney's fees under Florida's offer of judgment statute in PIP insurance disputes, but reversed the fee award because the settlement proposal's release language was impermissibly ambiguous and lacked the particularity required by civil p
• Howard v. Lawrence Savitsky, M.D.
  813 So. 2d 978· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-03-13 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a summary judgment granted to doctors in a medical malpractice case. The court found that a release signed by the patient in a prior premises liability lawsuit against homeowners was ambiguous regarding its scope, creating a material issue of fact tha
• VLX Props., Inc. v. S. States Utils., Inc.
  792 So. 2d 504· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-05-21 ·cited 3×
  VLX Properties sought inverse condemnation compensation after reclaimed water flowed across a portion of James Pond that it later acquired. The court receded from its prior decision in VLX1, finding that the original panel had misinterpreted the joinder agreement executed by the
• Danforth Orthopedic Brace & Limb, Inc. v. Fla. Health Care Plan, Inc.
  750 So. 2d 774· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-02-18 ·cited 3×
  Danforth Orthopedic Brace & Limb challenged summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim against Florida Health Care Plan (FHCP) for improper termination of an orthopedic device supply agreement. The court reversed, finding the contract ambiguous regarding whether the
• Luciano v. Franchino
  730 So. 2d 410· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-04-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the release was ambiguous and parol evidence should be considered to determine the parties' intent regarding the counterclaim.
• Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs.
  710 So. 2d 608· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-03-27 ·cited 3×
• Skandinaviska-Enskilda Banken v. C.L.C. Marine Servs.
  172 B.R. 1002· S.D. Fla.· 1994-09-30 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decisions, holding that CLC Inc. and CLC Ltd. did not waive their maritime lien rights and that the directed verdict for CLC Ltd. was proper.
• Crusaw v. Crusaw
  637 So. 2d 949· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-06-01 ·cited 3×
  In this homestead property dispute, the trial court set aside a 1953 deed transferring property from parents to their son, finding the property was homestead in nature and conveyed without adequate consideration despite the deed reciting $800 as consideration. The appellate court
• AM Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Forging Equip. Corp.
  982 F.2d 989· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-07 ·cited 3×
  A release can allocate CERCLA liability between responsible parties, but its effectiveness depends on the parties' intent regarding environmental claims under state law. The court reversed the district court's ruling that the release was ineffective against CERCLA claims, remandi
• Cent. Nat'l Bank v. Palmer
  806 F. Supp. 253· M.D. Fla.· 1992-11-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant's signature on the renewal promissory note, when construed in the context of the entire instrument and related modification agreement, bound him as the borrower, despite the signature's placement under a 'receipt of copy' heading.
• Mason v. Martina R. Roser
  588 So. 2d 622· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-10-14 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision to void a deed, finding that the trial court erred in allowing parol evidence to challenge the stated consideration of "love and affection" when the purpose was to defeat the deed's operation.
• Acquisition Corp. of Am. v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
  1991 WL 57905· S.D. Fla.· 1991-03-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a settlement agreement's release of claims is enforceable, as any alleged oral agreement to extend a payment deadline is barred by the parol evidence rule and merger doctrine, or fails for lack of consideration as a subsequent modification.
• Birendra Mohan Sharma v. Skaarup Ship Mgmt. Corp.
  916 F.2d 820· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that contract damages for breach involving deprivation of an asset with market value are limited to the asset's market value at the time of the breach, precluding recovery of future lost profits. It also held that a contract clause granting an unrestricted right to
• 777 Flagler Co. v. Amerifirst Bank
  559 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for the bank, holding that no enforceable contract was formed because the parties failed to agree on required exhibits by the specified deadline.
• The Horn & Hardart Co. v. The Pillsbury Co.
  888 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that parol evidence cannot be used to connect signed and unsigned writings to satisfy the Statute of Frauds if the signed writing does not itself establish a contractual relationship or sufficiently set forth the transaction.
• Grossman v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela
  534 So. 2d 773· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-11-15 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed that a maker of a note cannot use parol evidence to escape an unconditional promise to pay based on an oral representation from the payee that payment is not required.
• State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lubbock v. W.M. Campbell
  848 F.2d 1186· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence was admissible to clarify an ambiguous guaranty agreement, and the district court did not err in allowing amendment of the counterclaim or denying the motion for directed verdict.
• Arnold v. Carmichael
  524 So. 2d 464· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-04-15 ·cited 3×
  Arnold, an attorney, was sued for professional negligence by intended testamentary beneficiaries (appellees) after he negligently omitted a residuary clause from a redrafted will. The court affirmed liability based on a privity exception for intended beneficiaries but reversed th
• Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc. v. FMG OF Kan. City, Inc.
  819 F.2d 1279· 4th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the denial of a new trial on breach of contract claims was an abuse of discretion due to excessive damages awarded by the jury.
• District-Realty Title Ins. Corp. v. Rudolf Ensmann
  767 F.2d 1018· D.C. Cir.· 1985-07-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Settlement Agreement unambiguously required the return of funds to Ensmann if settlement did not occur, and the parol evidence rule barred extrinsic evidence to contradict the clear terms.
• Wallace Steel, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  739 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Wallace Steel was entitled to recover damages for the loss of all valuable byproducts resulting from Ingersoll-Rand's wrongful termination of the contract, not just the aluminum byproduct specifically mentioned.