Deich v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deich v. Lee

565 So. 2d 869, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1990 WL 116331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2743

StatusPublished

This text of 565 So. 2d 869 (Deich v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deich v. Lee, 565 So. 2d 869, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1990 WL 116331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment in favor of appellees, Bernard and Esther Lee, with directions that summary final judgment be entered in favor of the appellants, Irving and Elsie Deich. The Deiches, formerly business partners with the Lees, sold all of their corporate assets to the Lees. The Lees assumed all obligations of the former enterprise and issued a hold harmless agreement in favor of the Deiches. There was no ambiguity in the hold harmless agreement so as to defeat the subsequent promissory note and schedule of payments given by Bernard Lee in favor of Irving Deich when an Internal Revenue Service claim was personally paid and satisfied by Deich. National Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Bailmar, Inc., 444 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 453 So.2d 43 (Fla.1984). Further, Lee’s partial past payment to Deich is entitled to great weight in construction of the various instruments employed by the parties. Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So.2d 390 (Fla.1958); Spindler v. Kushner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment in favor of appellees, Bernard and Esther Lee, with directions that summary final judgment be entered in favor of the appellants, Irving and Elsie Deich. The Deiches, formerly business partners with the Lees, sold all of their corporate assets to the Lees. The Lees assumed all obligations of the former enterprise and issued a hold harmless agreement in favor of the Deiches. There was no ambiguity in the hold harmless agreement so as to defeat the subsequent promissory note and schedule of payments given by Bernard Lee in favor of Irving Deich when an Internal Revenue Service claim was personally paid and satisfied by Deich. National Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Bailmar, Inc., 444 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 453 So.2d 43 (Fla.1984). Further, Lee’s partial past payment to Deich is entitled to great weight in construction of the various instruments employed by the parties. Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So.2d 390 (Fla.1958); Spindler v. Kushner, 284 So.2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 So. 2d 869, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6105, 1990 WL 116331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deich-v-lee-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack