Network Video, Inc. v. NCNB National Bank of Florida
Docket: No. 90-02576
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 7, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
Network Video, Inc. and its guarantors, the Buntes and Valencies, appealed a summary judgment in favor of NCNB National Bank of Florida regarding damages on a promissory note and guarantees. The appellate court reversed the judgment due to unresolved factual issues related to Network Video's counterclaim and defense of setoff. Network Video had introduced MTC-USA, Inc. to NCNB to secure a $300,000 line of credit for importing televisions, using its $300,000 certificate of deposit as collateral. Despite a request for advance notice of draws against the line of credit, NCNB failed to notify Network Video before making subsequent draws totaling $269,000. Network Video protested this failure and did not receive the expected televisions. In March 1988, Network Video and NCNB established a new $600,000 line of credit, with half being unsecured and the other half secured by the same certificate of deposit, which was also collateral for MTC’s loan. The guarantors agreed to back the entire amount. When Network Video defaulted on its unsecured line of credit, it contended that NCNB's retention of the certificate of deposit breached their agreement for notification of MTC's draws. NCNB filed suit, and the trial court granted summary judgment, interpreting that the new loan agreements released any prior claims arising from the failure to notify. The appellate court found this interpretation incorrect, stating that while the new loan agreements did not contain a release or waiver of the prior claims, they acknowledged NCNB’s position on the continued use of the certificate of deposit as collateral for MTC. The court emphasized the necessity for clear mutual intent in the agreements to release preexisting claims, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, with the court noting that NCNB may have other legal arguments regarding the adequacy of the counterclaim and defense that had not been addressed by the trial court.