MGT

End of Chapter Questions – Week 3
Lauren Wilkes
Mgmt 597

Chapter 22.10 In the case of Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. V Charter Bank of Gainsville, Holly Hill purchased land from Rogers and Blythe giving them a promissory note and purchase money mortgage. The note stated, “this note with interest is secured by a mortgage on real estate, of even date herewith, made by the maker hereof in favor of the said payee, and shall be constructed and enforced according to laws of the State of Florida” (HOLLY HILL ACRES, LTD., a Limited Partnership, Appellant, v. CHARTER BANK OF GAINESVILLE, a Banking Corporation, et al., Appellees., 1975). The promissory note was issued to Rogers and Blythe, Rogers and Blythe later took a loan from Charter Bank, in order to secure the loan, they transferred the promissory note they had created with Holly Hill. After Holly Hill defaulted, Charter Bank sued to recover on Holly Hill’s promissory note, the question being if the reference to the mortgage in the note makes it non-negotiable.
First, it would have to be determined if Charter Bank was a holder in due course, they do fit the books description “a holder who takes a negotiable instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that is defective or overdue” (Cheeseman, 2010). Which according the case the lower court did agree with. Although the court on appeal found the note was non-negotiable because it incorporated the terms of the purchase money mortgage. Now the bank was not a holder in due course, therefore was subject to any defenses that Holly Hills made. Holly Hills brought up the defense of fraud; Charter Bank was unable to provide evidence that there was no fraud.

Chapter 23.8
In the case of General Investment Corporation v. Angelini, the Angelini’s were having the siding replaced on their house; they hired Lustro for the job. They chose a payment plan