Pepper v. First Union National Bank

605 So. 2d 1016, 1992 WL 280771
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 14, 1992
Docket91-3287
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 1016 (Pepper v. First Union National 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
Pepper v. First Union National Bank, 605 So. 2d 1016, 1992 WL 280771 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

605 So.2d 1016 (1992)

David L. PEPPER, Appellant,
v.
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, a national banking association, Appellees.

No. 91-3287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 14, 1992.

*1017 Philip T. Weinstein and David M. Garvin of Weinstein & Garvin, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Douglas H. Morford and William L. Joel of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Taylor, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court's entry of a summary final judgment in favor of appellee, First Union National Bank of Florida, in its mortgage foreclosure suit against appellant, David L. Pepper, based upon the release agreement executed by Pepper on October 5, 1989, in which he released the claims and defenses he now seeks to assert in defense of the foreclosure action. Pepper is precluded from defending against the enforcement of the release on the sole ground that he did not read the document before signing it. See Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1977); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So.2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Moreover, Pepper is precluded, as a matter of law, from defending against the enforcement of the release based on his claim of fraudulent inducement, because, due to the hostile and antagonistic relationship that existed between himself and First Union during the months prior to the execution of the release, Pepper could not reasonably rely on any representations made by First Union. See Pieter Bakker Management, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 541 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA) (on rehearing), review denied, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Moriber v. Dreiling
194 So. 3d 369 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Barnwell v. Masten
802 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Hall v. Burger King Corp.
912 F. Supp. 1509 (S.D. Florida, 1995)
Brown v. Keystone State Bank
614 So. 2d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 So. 2d 1016, 1992 WL 280771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepper-v-first-union-national-bank-fladistctapp-1992.