Penzell v. Capital Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Penzell v. Capital Bank

508 So. 2d 499, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8748

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2336

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 499 (Penzell v. Capital Bank) 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

Penzell v. Capital Bank, 508 So. 2d 499, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8748 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial judge’s conclusion, in granting a post-trial motion for judgment for the plaintiff bank after a jury verdict for the defendant, Penzell, that there was no legal basis for a finding either that Penzell had executed a clearly-worded guarantee by his own “unilateral mistake,” see BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th [500]*500DCA 1985); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So.2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see generally Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965), or that it resulted from a “mutual mistake” of both parties. See Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title & Bonding Co., 105 Fla. 657, 142 So. 242 (1932). Hence, Penzell was bound by the terms of the guarantee.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial judge’s conclusion, in granting a post-trial motion for judgment for the plaintiff bank after a jury verdict for the defendant, Penzell, that there was no legal basis for a finding either that Penzell had executed a clearly-worded guarantee by his own “unilateral mistake,” see BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th [500]*500DCA 1985); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So.2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see generally Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965), or that it resulted from a “mutual mistake” of both parties. See Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title & Bonding Co., 105 Fla. 657, 142 So. 242 (1932). Hence, Penzell was bound by the terms of the guarantee.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 499, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1433, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penzell-v-capital-bank-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack