449 F. App'x 818
11th Cir.2011Background
- Old Jupiter, LLC and Dilip Barot sued Regions Bank after the district court granted summary judgment for Regions.
- Appellants argued four deficiencies: excluding oral representations, estoppel defense, oral modifications, and new-evidence-based relief motions.
- The Note unambiguously set a maturity date; appellants sought parol evidence to vary that date.
- Appellants claimed Regions Bank induced signing with promises of extended payment time; they argued equitable estoppel.
- The court affirmed summary judgment, denying reconsideration and new-evidence relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parol evidence was admissible to vary the Note’s maturation | Old Jupiter contends oral terms exist that alter maturity. | Regions asserts maturation is unambiguous; parol evidence cannot contradict. | Parol evidence not admitted; maturation unambiguous. |
| Whether equitable estoppel premised on promises to extend payments defeats maturity | Old Jupiter relied on bank promises to obtain extra time. | Promissory statements contradict the express terms; no justifiable reliance. | Equitable estoppel rejected. |
| Whether there was valid consideration to modify or form a new contract | Oral modification exists; consideration alleged. | Complaint failed to raise oral-modification issue; no valid consideration shown. | No valid modification given lack of raised issue and evidence. |
| Whether new post-hearing evidence requires reconsideration | Post-hearing deposition evidence warrants reconsideration. | Evidence was known; deposition opportunity was available earlier. | Motion for reconsideration denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 1998) (fraudulent inducement exception to parol evidence rule; admissibility when not contradicting terms)
- Ungerledier v. Gordon, 214 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2000) (parol evidence cannot contradict express terms of agreement)
- Advanced Marketing Systems Corp. v. ZK Yacht Sales, 830 So.2d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (justifiable reliance not proven when terms are definite)
- Slomcenski v. Citibank, N.A., 432 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2005) (standards for reconsideration of judgments)
- Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661 (11th Cir. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion review for reconsideration denial)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise oral modification issue in complaint)
- Schneir v. State, 43 So.3d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (new evidence must show valid new consideration or strong grounds)