Greene v. Bursey, 98-3138.
Decision Date | 19 May 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-3138.,98-3138. |
Citation | 733 So.2d 1111 |
Parties | Douglas E. GREENE, Appellant, v. David BURSEY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Keane and Brandon S. Vesely of Keane & Reese, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert L. Young and Charlotte L. Warren of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
Douglas E. Greene timely appeals from the denial of his motion for rehearing following an adverse final summary judgment entered on David Bursey's complaint which sought payment under a written personal guaranty on a promissory note. Greene argues that fact questions remained with respect to whether Bursey had any legal right to enforce the guaranty, whether part of Bursey's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and whether such claim was barred by the doctrine of laches. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On April 2, 1984, Western World assigned its interest in the mortgage and promissory note to Bursey, the husband of Western World's president. The assignment read, in pertinent part:
Western World Real Estate, Inc .... in consideration for the sum of [$205,000]... does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set over, to said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, that certain mortgage executed by Joli Hospitalities, Inc., as mortgagor to Western World Real Estate, Inc., as mortgagee ... together with all right and interest in the land therein described, and in the note and obligations therein specified, and as to the debt thereby secured....
In December, 1984, Joli I sold the Hotel to Joli Moorhead Limited Partnership ("Joli II"), a limited partnership which was formed by the March Company. Nevertheless, Joli I maintained the management contract to operate the Hotel.
In January, 1985, Greene sent a registered letter to Western World on behalf of Joli I, exercising the right to extend the final payment date under the promissory note to March 30, 1987.
In December, 1985, the March Company secured an injunction in a Minnesota federal court enjoining Greene and Joli I from participating in the management of the Hotel and Joli II. Thereafter, the March Company entered into an agreement on April 1, 1986, with Bursey to modify the promissory note. This agreement extended the final payment date under the note from March, 1987 to April, 1991. Joli II made its last sporadic payment under the new agreement on March 3, 1987. At some point thereafter, which is not clear from the record, the March Company dissolved.
On April 7, 1995, Bursey sued Greene and others in Palm Beach County, Florida1, alleging that each of them was personally liable under the written guaranty for Joli II's having defaulted under the promissory note. Bursey alleged he was the present owner and holder of the note, agreement, and guaranty based on his having received same by assignment from Western World on April 2, 1984. Greene raised the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and laches, among others.
In April, 1998, the court granted Bursey's motion for final summary judgment, awarding Bursey the outstanding principal of $195,000 plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, for a total sum of $474,809.55. This appeal followed.
Greene argues that the court erred in granting Bursey summary judgment because fact issues remained as to whether Bursey had any legal right to enforce the personal guaranty against him. We disagree. Western World's assignment of the note and mortgage to Bursey operated as an assignment of the guaranty, even though the assignment contained no specific reference to the guaranty. See 38 Am.Jur.2d Guaranty § 36 (1968)(a bill or note passes with a transfer of the bill or note, whether such guaranty is indorsed on the bill or note or is contained in a separate instrument) that a guaranty of payment of . As the subject guarantee was premised on the original note and mortgage, and ran unconditionally to Western World, its successors, and assigns, it was a general guaranty. See Rizzi v. Service Dev. Corp., 354 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)("his heirs and assigns" was a general guaranty) a guaranty which was for the benefit of the lessor and . Because anyone who acts on a general guaranty may enforce it, New Holland, Inc. v. Trunk, 579 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (citation omitted), Bursey, as Western World's assignee of the note and mortgage, was entitled to enforce same against Greene.
Greene next argues that a fact question remained as to whether Bursey's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. He maintains that Bursey's cause of action accrued, if at all, in 1987, when Joli II defaulted under the terms of the note, and not in 1991, the final maturity date of the note, as Bursey maintains. It is undisputed that the applicable statute of limitations is section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), which sets a five-year period for suits involving an action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument, as here. The statute of limitations begins to run from the time the cause of action accrues. § 95.031, Fla. Stat. (1997); Bauld v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 357 So.2d 401 (Fla.1978). A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs. § 95.031(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, the key to resolving this point on appeal is to determine whether Bursey filed his lawsuit within five years from the date his cause of action accrued.
The note which Greene guaranteed provided for monthly installment payments though April 1, 1991. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations under an installment contract starts to run on the date each payment becomes due. Isaacs v. Deutsch, 80 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla.1955). As such, the statute of limitations may run on some installments and not others. Central Home Trust Co. of Elizabeth v. Lippincott, 392 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)(footnote omitted). Where the installment contract contains an optional acceleration clause, the statute of limitations may commence running earlier on payments not yet due if the holder exercises his right to accelerate the total debt because of a default. Id. (footnote omitted). In other words, the entire debt does not become due on the mere default of payment; rather, it become due when the creditor takes affirmative action to alert the debtor that he has exercised his option to accelerate. United States v. Cardinal, 452 F.Supp. 542, 547 (D.Vt.1978) (citation omitted). This is true even when the note itself, as here, waives notice of demand. Id.
It is undisputed that Bursey never accelerated the note even though, under the terms of the guaranty, he had the option of doing so upon Joli II's default in any given month. Thus, the statute of limitations on the underlying note would not have commenced until it matured on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. HCIC
...the date the assessment is made, that is, from the date when an action may be brought on that particular assessment. Greene v. Bursey, 733 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Fla.Ct.App.1999). Hence, the limitation period may expire on some assessments but not on others. Id. Specifically, DWR cannot challeng......
-
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Beauvais, 3D14–575.
...clause, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the lender exercises its acceleration right. Greene v. Bursey, 733 So.2d 1111, 1114–15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ; Monte v. Tipton, 612 So.2d 714, 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; see also Smith v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 61 F.3d 1552, 1561 ......
-
Merle Wood & Assocs., Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC
...wholesale medicine distributor was required to pay rebates specified in the agreement to the retail pharmacy); see Greene v. Bursey, 733 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (promissory note with monthly installment payments); see Central Home Trust Co. v. Lippincott, 392 So.2d 931, 933 (Fl......
-
Merle Wood & Assocs., Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC
...wholesale medicine distributor was required to pay rebates specified in the agreement to the retail pharmacy); see Greene v. Bursey, 733 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (promissory note with monthly installment payments); see Central Home Trust Co. v. Lippincott, 392 So.2d 931, 933 (Fl......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...here, he may not suspend indefinitely the running of the statute of limitations by delaying performance of this act. Greene v. Bursey, 733 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).[57] Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016).[58] In U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Bartram, 140 So......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...here, he may not suspend indefinitely the running of the statute of limitations by delaying performance of this act. Greene v. Bursey, 733 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).[55] In U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Bartram, 140 So. 3d 1007, 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ("Bar-tram I"), the Fifth Distr......
-
Legal theories & defenses
..., 155 So.3d 1279, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Gaines v. Gaines , 870 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). See Also 1. Greene v. Bursey , 733 So.2d 1111, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 2. Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), cause dismissed , 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1995). 3. Smith v. T......
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...due when the creditor takes affirmative action to alert the debtor that he has exercised his option to accelerate." Greene v. Bursey, 733 So. 2d 1111, 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Nearly all courts that have decided the issue hold that acceleration occurs when a foreclosure complaint is filed ......