Case ID: so2d_296/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne STEINBERG and Golda Steinberg, his wife, Appellants, v. CHARLES SALES CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
    No. 73-1170.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 11, 1974.
    Rehearing Denied July 12, 1974.
    Gars & Dixon, Miami, for appellants.
    Milton A. Fried, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JTJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellants were alleged to be the guarantors of the debt of a corporation. They were sued by the appellee and filed affirmative defenses. After the filing of affidavits and the deposition of one of the defendants, the trial judge entered a summary final judgment for the plaintiff.

On this appeal the defendants claim that there is a genuine issue of material fact raised by their defense alleging that the instrument sued upon was not intended by the parties to be a personal guarantee by the defendants of the corporation’s debts. We hold that the claimed defense when supported by every reasonable inference is not clearly shown to be without merit. See Chereton v. Armstrong Rubber Company, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 579.

We agree that no^ issue appears upon the remaining defense.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.