White v. Bachner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. Bachner

632 So. 2d 94, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 420, 1994 WL 26909

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1436

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 94 (White v. Bachner) 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

White v. Bachner, 632 So. 2d 94, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 420, 1994 WL 26909 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Charles G. White appeals from an order of the trial court granting final summary judgment in a claim on a promissory note. We affirm.

The trial court correctly granted summary judgment because there is no evidence of any release, waiver, novation, or discharge of the valid promissory note. “A promissory note admitted into evidence is sufficient, without other extrinsic proof, to establish a prima facie case in an action on the note.” Perez v. Rivero, 634 So.2d 914, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Hay cook v. Ostman, 397 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). There is no written release. See Deese v. Mobley, 392 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); § 673.605, Fla.Stat. (1991). Neither is there evidence of a novation. Finally, the defense of laches was specifically waived by the terms of the instrument, and the suit was filed within the statute of limitations period.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles G. White appeals from an order of the trial court granting final summary judgment in a claim on a promissory note. We affirm.

The trial court correctly granted summary judgment because there is no evidence of any release, waiver, novation, or discharge of the valid promissory note. “A promissory note admitted into evidence is sufficient, without other extrinsic proof, to establish a prima facie case in an action on the note.” Perez v. Rivero, 634 So.2d 914, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Hay cook v. Ostman, 397 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). There is no written release. See Deese v. Mobley, 392 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); § 673.605, Fla.Stat. (1991). Neither is there evidence of a novation. Finally, the defense of laches was specifically waived by the terms of the instrument, and the suit was filed within the statute of limitations period.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 94, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 420, 1994 WL 26909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-bachner-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack