Spurrier v. United Bank, DD-263
| Decision Date | 16 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. DD-263,DD-263 |
| Citation | 359 So.2d 908 |
| Parties | Steven O. SPURRIER and Billy G. Dunavant, Appellants, v. UNITED BANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Allison E. Folds of Fagan, Crouch, Anderson & Folds, Gainesville, for appellants.
Bevin G. Ritch of Lowry & Ritch, Gainesville, for appellee.
United Bank (United) brought suit on two promissory notes against Steve Spurrier's Golden Door Spa, Inc. (Spa), as maker of the notes, and appellants, Spurrier and Dunavant, as guarantors of the corporate obligations of Spa. The notes for Forty and Twenty-five Thousand Dollars were signed on behalf of Spa by James Latham, above the line labeled president, and by Charles Latham, above the line labeled secretary. Prior to the Spa notes being executed, Spa had filed with United a corporate resolution which provided that Spa could borrow money from United ". . . and that James R. Latham, Pres., Lowell V. Summerhays, Sec., are hereby authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the promissory note or notes of this corporation. . . ." It was further provided that the resolution would continue in effect until rescinded by resolution, and notice of the rescission, signed by the president and secretary, was received by United.
In their answer, Spurrier and Dunavant asserted the defense of unauthorized execution of the notes and negligence on the part of United in failing to determine that the notes were not executed in conformity with the corporate resolution on file with United. After trial without a jury, final judgment was entered against Spa, Spurrier and Dunavant. Spurrier and Dunavant take this appeal from that judgment.
Spurrier and Dunavant contend that the Spa notes were not executed in compliance with the authorization of corporate borrowing on file with United, and therefore they cannot be held liable on the notes. Spurrier's and Dunavant's liability as guarantors is contingent on Spa's liability on the notes. The guaranties executed by Spurrier and Dunavant guaranteed ". . . prompt payment, at maturity, of any and all notes, drafts, checks, and any and all indebtedness, . . . which now or hereafter may exist or be owing from (Spa) to (United). . . ." If Spa is liable on the notes, so are Spurrier and Dunavant as guarantors.
In its final judgment, the trial court found that United was the owner and holder of the notes ". . . executed by STEVE SPURRIER'S GOLDEN DOOR SPA, INC., in favor of UNITED. . . .", and that payment of the notes had been guaranteed by Spurrier and Dunavant. Since the trial court did not specifically state the facts or theory supporting its ultimate conclusion, we are required to accept the facts to be those shown by evidence most favorable to United, the party which prevailed below, and can only reverse the trial court if there is no theory under which the judgment can be sustained. Coble v. Agnew, 128 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Cohen v. Mohawk, 137 So.2d 222 (Fla.1962). We believe that there are at least two possible theories which would sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cibao v. Lama
...either expressly, as by a written act, or impliedly, as by acceptance of the benefits of the contract.” Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1978) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This passage suggests that when, as here, the pri......
-
Sphinx Intern. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...of a contract and at the same time renounce, or repudiate, the burdens which that contract places on him." Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); See also United Chemicals, Inc. v. Welch, 460 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Fineberg v. Kline, 542 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d......
-
Liza Danielle, Inc. v. Jamko, Inc.
...or unless no valid legal basis exists for the conclusion reached as to the meaning of the ambiguous provision, Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Posner v. Flink, 167 So.2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Sub judice, there was testimony, albeit contradicted, which supports ......
-
Seaside Community Development Corp. v. Edwards, 89-3275
...evidence and accept the facts in evidence which are most favorable to the party that prevailed at trial. See Spurrier v. United Bank, 359 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Blue Lakes Apartments v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So.2d at 708-709. The record reflects that the closing was delayed beyon......