Legal Opinion · Dissent

USAmeriBank v. Klepal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 12, 2011No. 2D11-256Published

1DissentWhatley, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The garnishment provision in the contract consists of one sentence and it neither mentions the term “waive” nor the head-of-family exemption, and it does not state or imply that the consumer, by signing the contract, is waiving a statutory right to such an exemption. Courts cannot, under the guise of contract construction, insert language into a contact that the drafter did not include. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Beach Cars of West Palm, Inc., 929 So.2d 729, 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see Union Bankers Ins. Co. v. DiPaolo, 627 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance Co. v. WatsonTennessee Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Texas National Bank v. Sandia Mortgage Corporation v. William B. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
  3. Discover Property & Cas. Ins. v. Beach CarsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  4. Lee v. MontgomeryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  5. Coastal Caisson Drill v. Amer. Cas. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API