Case Name: Andrew W. PENZELL, Appellant, v. CAPITAL BANK, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-06-09
Citations: 508 So. 2d 499
Docket Number: No. 86-2336
Parties: Andrew W. PENZELL, Appellant, v. CAPITAL BANK, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 508
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.