Lake Forest Park, Inc. v. Federal Financial Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lake Forest Park, Inc. v. Federal Financial Co.

723 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13667, 1998 WL 765041

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3563

StatusPublished

This text of 723 So. 2d 301 (Lake Forest Park, Inc. v. Federal Financial Co.) 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

Lake Forest Park, Inc. v. Federal Financial Co., 723 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13667, 1998 WL 765041 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, the makers and/or guarantors on two promissory notes, appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Federal Financial Company, a successor in interest to the Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”). Based upon our careful review of the undisputed record evidence before us, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that both notes were negotiable instruments pursuant to section 673.1041(1), Florida Statutes (1995); and that the appellee, as successor to the RTC, was entitled to federal holder in due course status so as to bar all personal defenses raised by the appellants to this cause. See Kasket v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 695 So.2d 431, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Smania v. Mundaca Inv. Corp., 629 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lassiter v. Resolution Trust Corp., 610 So.2d 531, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bledsoe, 989 F.2d 805, 810-11 (5th Cir.1993); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Jet Stream, Ltd., 790 F.Supp. 1130, 1137-38 (M.D.Fla.1992). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, the makers and/or guarantors on two promissory notes, appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee, Federal Financial Company, a successor in interest to the Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”). Based upon our careful review of the undisputed record evidence before us, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that both notes were negotiable instruments pursuant to section 673.1041(1), Florida Statutes (1995); and that the appellee, as successor to the RTC, was entitled to federal holder in due course status so as to bar all personal defenses raised by the appellants to this cause. See Kasket v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 695 So.2d 431, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Smania v. Mundaca Inv. Corp., 629 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lassiter v. Resolution Trust Corp., 610 So.2d 531, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bledsoe, 989 F.2d 805, 810-11 (5th Cir.1993); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Jet Stream, Ltd., 790 F.Supp. 1130, 1137-38 (M.D.Fla.1992). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 301, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13667, 1998 WL 765041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lake-forest-park-inc-v-federal-financial-co-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack