DuBois v. Philadelphia Produce Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DuBois v. Philadelphia Produce Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc.

504 So. 2d 62, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7346

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1859

StatusPublished

This text of 504 So. 2d 62 (DuBois v. Philadelphia Produce Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc.) 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

DuBois v. Philadelphia Produce Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc., 504 So. 2d 62, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7346 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellants, Theodore and Mildred DuBois. Upon examination of the record we find that the guarantee in question is unambiguous and, as written, is prospective only in application. See Clermont Builders Supply, Inc. v. General [63]*63Construction & Design, Inc., 423 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Even if we were to find a waiver of the parol evidence rule and consider the parol evidence presented to the trial court, we find no competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the guarantee agreement was intended to cover prior debts.

ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of appellants, Theodore and Mildred DuBois. Upon examination of the record we find that the guarantee in question is unambiguous and, as written, is prospective only in application. See Clermont Builders Supply, Inc. v. General [63]*63Construction & Design, Inc., 423 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Even if we were to find a waiver of the parol evidence rule and consider the parol evidence presented to the trial court, we find no competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the guarantee agreement was intended to cover prior debts.

ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 So. 2d 62, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 851, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubois-v-philadelphia-produce-credit-collection-bureau-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack