- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ROBINSON v. BRUNSON
Factual and Procedural Background
Ozella Robinson, the plaintiff below, filed a complaint against the estate of John Thomas Brunson, Sr., alleging that the deceased owed her $4,500 plus interest under a promissory note executed on March 22, 1977. Warrene H. Brunson, as personal representative of the estate, answered denying liability and asserting payment of the note as an affirmative defense. At trial, it was established that the deceased had simultaneously given Robinson an undated check for $4,500, which was never presented to the bank for payment. The trial court found in favor of the defendant estate, and Robinson appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the failure of the plaintiff to present an undated check given by the deceased for payment discharges the underlying obligation of the promissory note.
- Whether the estate of the deceased is liable on the promissory note despite the non-presentation of the check.
- Whether the affirmative defense of payment was established by the defendant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial court erred in concluding that the defendant was not liable on the promissory note.
- Failure to present the undated check for payment does not discharge the underlying obligation under the Uniform Commercial Code.
- The payments made by the deceased were not intended as payments on the promissory note and thus cannot offset the debt.
Appellee's Arguments
- The estate argued that the promissory note was paid by the deceased through the undated check given simultaneously.
- Asserted payment as an affirmative defense based on the check and possibly the small payments made.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the effect of the plaintiff's failure to present the undated check for payment on the underlying obligation of the promissory note under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Specifically, the court referenced Section 673.802(1)(b), which states that a check given for an underlying obligation suspends that obligation only until the check is presented. Section 673.501(1)(c) requires presentment to charge the drawer but primarily concerns liability on the check itself rather than the underlying debt. The court further cited Section 673.3-502(1)(b), explaining that the drawer is discharged from the underlying obligation only if presentment is unreasonably delayed and the bank becomes insolvent during that delay. Since the bank did not become insolvent, the estate was not discharged from liability.
The court also considered the evidence of small payments made by the deceased but found these payments were not intended to satisfy the note and thus could not offset the debt. The defendant failed to prove payment by a preponderance of the evidence.
Holding and Implications
The judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant estate is REVERSED. The case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the promissory note plus interest as stipulated in its terms.
This decision directly affects the parties by holding the estate liable on the promissory note despite the non-presentation of the check. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing UCC provisions.
DANAHY, Judge.
Ozella Robinson, the plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant Warrene H. Brunson. Robinson contends that the trial court erred in finding that the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff on a promissory note. We agree and reverse.
Brunson is the personal representative of the estate of John Thomas Brunson, Sr., deceased. Robinson filed a complaint against the estate alleging that the deceased owed Robinson $4,500.00 plus interest under a promissory note executed on March 22, 1977. Brunson filed an answer and affirmative defense alleging payment of the note; Robinson filed an answer to the affirmative defense denying that payment had been made.
At trial it was established that the deceased had, simultaneously with the execution of the promissory note, given Robinson an undated check in the amount of $4,500.00. The check, however, was never presented to the bank for payment. Accordingly, we are faced with the question whether Robinson's failure to present the check for payment discharges the underlying obligation. The Uniform Commercial Code clearly establishes that it does not, except in a very unusual situation which is not present in the case before us.
Section 673.802(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that unless otherwise agreed, when a check is given for an underlying obligation, it suspends pro tanto the underlying obligation until the check is presented. Section 673.501(1)(c) provides that presentment is necessary to charge the drawer of the check, but this section apparently deals primarily with liability for the check itself and not the underlying obligation. Section 673.501(1)(c) specifically states that the "failure to make presentment discharges such drawer . . . only as stated in ยง 673.3-502(1)(b)." That section provides that the drawer of the check is only discharged from the underlying obligation if presentment of the check is unreasonably delayed and the bank becomes insolvent during the delay; "but such drawer . . . is not otherwise discharged."
The deceased was the drawer of the check. Assuming arguendo that Robinson delayed presentment of the check for an unreasonable time, the deceased's estate is not discharged from the underlying liability because the bank did not become insolvent during the delay. Therefore, the trial court erred in not holding Brunson's estate liable for the promissory note.
There was some evidence presented involving four relatively small payments of money from the deceased to Robinson. But since the uncontroverted evidence shows that these payments were not intended as payments on the promissory note, they cannot be offset against the note. Accordingly, the defense failed to prove the affirmative defense of payment by a preponderance of the evidence. The uncontroverted evidence shows that the promissory note was given to Robinson by the deceased in consideration of a $4,500.00 loan. Although the deceased gave Robinson an undated check, Robinson's failure to present that check for payment did not discharge the deceased from the underlying obligation.
The judgment for the defendant is reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the amount of the note, plus interest as provided by its terms.
SCHEB, Acting C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Alert