[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. a valid contract;
2. a material breach;
3. damages; and
4. that plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. a valid contract;
2. a material breach;
3. damages; and
4. that plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note.

Republic Bank of Chicago v. Gehrisch Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 2022 WL 3646067, *2 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2022) (citation omitted). The elements of a claim for breach of promissory note are the same as the elements for a breach of contract claim. E.g., Cerniglia v. Davison Chemical Co., 145 So.2d 254, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). See Chapter 7, Breach of Contract.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

First District: Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC v. Parks, 2022 WL 1482387, *2 (Fla. 1st DCA May 11, 2022) (listing elements for breach of contract claim);  Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (same).

Second District: Synergy Cont. Grp., Inc. v. Fednat Ins. Co., 332 So.3d 62, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (listing elements for breach of contract claim); Farman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Long Beach Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-05, 311 So. 3d 191, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)(same);JF & LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co., 292 So.3d 500, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same).

Third District: IMC Group, L.L.C. v. Outar Inv. Co., L.L.C., 2022 WL 163835, *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 19, 2022) (listing elements for breach of contract claim); People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d 840, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same); R. Plants, Inc. v. Dome Enter., Inc., 221 So.3d 752, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA  2017) (same).

Fourth District: Rauch, Weaver, Norfleet, Kurtz & Co. v. AJP Pine Island Warehouses, Inc., 313 So. 3d 625, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)(listing elements for breach of contract claim); Chetu, Inc. v. KO Gaming, Inc., 261 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (same).

Fifth District: Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. v. L. Offs. of E. Clay Parker, 160 So. 3d 955, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)(listing elements for breach of contract claim); Baron v. Osman, 39 So. 3d 449, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (same).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Southern District: Codeventures, LLC v. Vital Motion Inc., 2021 WL 1131778, *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2021)(listing elements of breach of promissory note); Suntrust Bank v. Ruiz, 2014 WL 11975023, *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2014) (same); Franquiyama Holdings, Inc. v. Tamayo, 2020 WL 4279896, *5 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2020) (same); United States v. Pelosaegeles, 2018 WL 6307908, *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2018) (same).

Middle District: McKesson Corp. v. Benzer KY 1 LLC, No. 8:24-CV-1256-WFJ-SPF, 2025 WL 73023, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025); FTF Lending, LLC v. Prestige Realty Consultants, Inc., No. 6:22-CV-2038-RBD-LHP, 2024 WL 4805295 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:22-CV-2038-RBD-LHP, 2024 WL 4805195, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2024)(holding that failure to make payments pursuant to promissory note constitutes material breach); Republic Bank of Chicago v. Gehrisch Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-415-SPC-NPM, 2022 WL 3646067, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2022); Centennial Bank v. Vazquez, 2021 WL 2815223, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2021).

Northern District: SE Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Chung, 2013 WL 12170490, *2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2013) (listing elements of breach of promissory note).

Florida Statute: § 679.4081, Fla. Stat.

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Promissory Note

1. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.
2.  Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (five years for written contract); § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (four years for oral contract); see also Gonzalez-Guzman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 17-20107-CIV-GAYLES, 2017 WL 4882512, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2017) (discussing the statute of limitations for written contracts).
3.  Defendant’s obligation to perform under the contract may be excused under the doctrine of commercial frustration when the purposes of the contract, or those which defendant bargained for, have become “frustrated because of the failure of consideration, or impossibility of performance by the other party.’’ See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).
4. Duress requires severe pressure or other influence that destroys the defendant’s free will, and forces the defendant to do an act or enter into a contract. See Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 1954); Cableview Commc’ns of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC, 901 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 174-177 (1981).
5. Statute of Frauds: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d); see also §§ 672.201, 672.206 (Florida U.C.C.), 678.319 (sale of securities), 680.201 (leasing), 725.01 (payment of another’s debt), Fla. Stat; Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 110, 130 (1981). Pineda v. Precision Response Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80230 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2011).
6. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that each party act consistently with, and take no actions to frustrate, the contract’s purpose, with the exception that Florida courts will not employ the covenant to negate a contract’s express terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981).
7. Impossibility of performance is a defense to breach of contract when the factual situation renders one party’s performance under the contract impossible. See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).
8. Contract enforcement is unconscionable when the contractual term was unreasonable and unfair (substantive unconscionability) at the time the parties entered the contract (procedural unconscionability). See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Cole, 287 So.3d 1272, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condo., Inc., 398 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 408 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1981); McAdoo v. New Line Transp., LLC, No. 8:16-cv-1917-T-27AEP, 2017 WL 942114, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 9, 2017); see also § 672.302, Fla. Stat.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).
9. Mistake: A party seeking to reform or excuse performance under a written contract must do so by clear and convincing evidence. E.g., BrandMart U.S.A. of W. Palm Beach v. DR Lakes, Inc., 901 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
   

   (a) Mutual mistake, which renders a contract voidable when both parties, at the time of making a contract, were mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect on the parties’ performances under the contract. Continental Assur. Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409 n.2 (Fla. 1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152 (1981).

   (b) Unilateral mistake, which allows a party to void a contract when the party, at the time of making a contract, was mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect of the parties’ performances which is adverse to the mistaken party. See DePrince v. Starboard Cruises, Inc., 271 So.3d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Contraband Sports, LLC v. Fit Four, LLC, No. 17-24615-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES, 2018 WL 6620902 (S.D. Fla. October 11, 2018); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 (1981).

10. Repudiation: An obligee sued for breach of contract may assert the defense of repudiation when the obligor first repudiated his or her duty of performance. See Southern Crane Rentals, Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So. 2d 771, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); City of Bradenton v. Safety Nat’l Casualty Corp., No. 8:17-cv-267-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2448399, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2017) (explaining the difference between an immediate breach and a repudiation); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 250-257 (1981).
11. Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent: A defending party’s assertion that a plaintiff has failed to satisfy conditions precedent necessary to trigger contractual duties under an existing agreement is generally viewed as an affirmative defense, for which the defensive pleader has the burden of pleading and persuasion. See Diaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 189 So. 3d 279, 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Harris v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 223 So.3d 1030, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
12. A contract induced by fraud renders the entire agreement voidable, permitting the aggrieved party to defend a suit on the contract by objecting to its enforcement because it was procured or induced by fraud, however, the defense is lost if the injured party manifests an intention to affirm the contract after acquiring knowledge of the fraud. See Antech Diagnostics, Inc. v. Posner, No. 17-80185-CV, 2018 WL 2298350, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2018).
13. Consequential damages: Extra-contractual, consequential damages are not available in a first-party breach of insurance contract action; they are, however, available in a separate bad faith action pursuant to § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Manor House, LLC, 313 So. 3d 579, 582 (Fla. 2021).
14. “Under Florida law, a party suing on a promissory note must be in possession of the original note or reestablish the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 673.3091.” Decisive Innovations, LLC v. Eel River Organics, LLC, 2019 WL 229441, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2019). Also, “If it is not in possession of the original note, and cannot reestablish it, the party simply may not prevail in an action on the note.” Decisive Innovations, LLC v. Eel River Organics, LLC, 2019 WL 229441, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2019) (citation omitted).
15. “The party asserting a claim for breach of a promissory note must establish that it is the owner of the promissory note and possesses the original.” Centennial Bank v. Vazquez, 2021 WL 2815223, *2 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2021) (citing, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. ASG Computer & Reprographic, Inc., 2020 WL 378491, *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2020)).
16. A Party trying to assert a claim for breach of promissory note does not need to “establish that it paid the requisite tax before seeking to enforce the note.” Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp., 2023 WL 4014801, *14 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2023) (See, Glenn Wright Homes (Delray) LLC v. Lowy, 18 So. 3d 693, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

[/MM_Access_Decision]