AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

CLAYTON EUGENE SCHAUER, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. and MORSE OPERATIONS, d/b/a E.D. MORSE CHEVROLET, Appellees.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

POLEN, C.J.

We deny Appellant's motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification, and accordingly write to clarify that portion of the original opinion wherein we state that "forging his signature to the credit application would have no legal efficacy because he was not obligated to sign or make payments. . . ." We neither hold nor imply that there is no legal efficacy to an automotive dealership's forgery of a credit application. We hold that the document at issue in this case has no legal efficacy as to the Appellant. As a result, Appellant cannot support a forgery allegation. See, e.g., Zurstrassen v. Stonier, 786 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SCHAUER v. G.M.A.C., 4D01-357 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 6-26-2002)
(Jun 26, 2002)