Case ID: so2d_508/html/0499-01.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

Andrew W. PENZELL, Appellant, v. CAPITAL BANK, Appellee.
    No. 86-2336.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 9, 1987.
    James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellant.
    Ullman & Ullman and Steven J. Glueck, North Miami Beach, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial judge’s conclusion, in granting a post-trial motion for judgment for the plaintiff bank after a jury verdict for the defendant, Penzell, that there was no legal basis for a finding either that Penzell had executed a clearly-worded guarantee by his own “unilateral mistake,” see BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So.2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see generally Maryland Casualty Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So.2d 541 (Fla.1965), or that it resulted from a “mutual mistake” of both parties. See Heisler v. Florida Mortgage Title & Bonding Co., 105 Fla. 657, 142 So. 242 (1932). Hence, Penzell was bound by the terms of the guarantee.

Affirmed.