812 So.2d 561 (2002)
The appellate court found that under Fla. Stat. ch. 620.8301(a), the bank could rely upon a general partner's apparent authority to bind the partnership, unless it had actual knowledge or notice of his restricted authority. In opposing summary judgment, the partnership produced no evidence showing the bank had actual knowledge or notice of such restrictions on the partnership's general partner. Accordingly, no issues of material fact were in dispute.
- While the partners may have agreed upon restrictions that would limit the general partner to borrowing no more than $ 650,000 on behalf of the partnership, the partnership did not contend, and nothing before the court showed, that the bank had actual knowledge or notice of any restrictions on the general partner's authority.
- The partnership could have protected itself by filing a statement pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 620.8303 or by providing notice to the bank of the specific restrictions on the authority of the general partner.
- Because there was no disputed issue of fact concerning whether the bank had actual knowledge or notice of restrictions on the general partner's authority to borrow, summary judgment was proper.
The lower court decision was affirmed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.