Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)

Citation: Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
Parent Document: Apple Valley Mall v. Floyd Realty Co., Inc., 97-4157 (1998) (1998)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 1998-03-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4113657/apple-valley-mall-v-floyd-realt... ↗

Full Text

1,471 chars

The Court has determined in arguendo that if the notice of nonpayment and notice of termination were properly served and effective under law, the defendant did not default under the lease terms because it provided timely payment of the amounts due in the notice of nonpayment. Our Supreme Court has recognized the general rule of law that the debtor has a right to determine how payments are applied to amounts due in an account and ". . . in the absence of a direction to the contrary by a debtor, payment upon a general account may be applied by a creditor to the oldest item thereon, . . . ." (emphasis added). Harris v. Gilbert,46 R.I. 350, 128 A. 11 (1925); see also 60 Am.Jur.2d Payment §§ 94 and 106 (1987); 2 Restatement (First) Contracts §§ 387-393 (1932); 2 Restatement (Second) Contracts §§ 258-260 (1981). The Supreme Court extended its interpretation under Harris,supra, by stating "[i]t is well settled that the debtor may direct the application of a payment on account, but in the absence of such direction or a manifestation of intent the payment shall be applied in a particular manner, the creditor may apply such payment in the order which he may consider most advantageous to himself." Albert S. Eastwood Lumber Co. v.Britto, 51 R.I. 406, 410, 155 A. 354, 356 (1931); (citing Williston on Contracts, vol 3, § 1795; Harris v. Gilbert,supra.). Moreover, other jurisdictions have recognized and expanded these general application principles holding that:

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text