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

1,888 chars

The evidence indicates that the defendant manifested an intent and communicated to the plaintiff to apply the $3,640.87 February 1, 1997 payment to common area maintenance charges; $16,325.00 January 30, 1997 payment to the February 1997 monthly rent installment; and $18,254.79 February 5, 1997 payment to accrued real estate taxes and disputed interest. The defendant did not direct the application of the two payments for $3,452.66 made on February 6, 1997 and February 7, 1997. The plaintiffs testimony concerning how checks received from the defendant were applied in the normal course of business is confusing. The plaintiff states that all charges relating to the defendant were listed in one general account ledger that itemized all outstanding amounts. Deposition of Simmons at 44-49. The plaintiff applied payments received by matching the amount of open items with the check(s) received, or by following the notation on the check stub or accompanying letter, or by applying payments to the oldest items outstanding. Id. There is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff applied priority to one of these methods over the other method. The plaintiff also stated that if she had a question concerning how the defendant wanted a payment applied that she did not contact the defendant for clarification. Id. The evidence supports a finding, and defendant argues in its memorandum of law, that the January 30, 1997 payment for $16,325.00 was for the February 1997 rent installment payment. However, the defendant also argues that this payment should have been applied to the January 1997 rent installment underpayment and other outstanding charges due in the notice of nonpayment and not applied to the February 1997 rent installment payment which was not due on the notice of termination date. This Court agrees with the defendant's argument in fact but not in its legal reasoning.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text