OSCAR SARMIENTO, APPELLANT,
v.
STOCKTON, WHATLEY, DAVIN & CO., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A judgment creditor appealed a summary judgment holding that a mortgage executed to a third-party lender was superior to his prior recorded judgment lien against the property owner. The court affirmed, holding that a mortgage securing part of the purchase price qualifies as a purchase-money mortgage regardless of whether it is held by the vendor or a third-party lender.
A mortgage securing part of the purchase price qualifies as a purchase-money mortgage and takes priority over a prior recorded judgment lien regardless of whether the mortgage is executed in favor of the vendor or a third-party lender, as long as it is executed in conjunction with the purchase.
[1] A mortgage executed in favor of a third party to finance a portion of the purchase price is considered a purchase money mortgage.
[2] A purchase money mortgage is superior in dignity to a prior recorded judgment lien against the mortgagor-vendee when executed in conjunction with the purchase and given a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As long as it is executed in conjunction with the purchase and given as security for a portion of the purchase price, it is a purchase money mortgage, although the money is advanced by a third party and the mortgage is executed in his favor.”
Establishes that a purchase-money mortgage retains its priority status even when held by a third-party lender rather than the vendor, provided it secures part of the purchase price.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Sarmiento obtained a judgment against Emmie Turner on January 11, 1977, and recorded it that day. On November 15, 1979, Turner purchased rea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment Lien Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is taken from a final summary judgment which held that the appellant’s judgment lien was inferior to the appellee’s mortgage.
On January 11,1977, the appellant recovered a judgment in the amount of $3,822.00 against one Emmie Turner. The judgment was recorded that same day. On November 15, 1979, Turner purchased certain real property in Dade County from a third party, executing a mortgage thereon in the amount of $24,950.00 in favor of the appel-lee herein.’ Thereafter, Turner sold the property to Kathleen Faulkner, who defaulted on the mortgage. On or about July 11, 1980, the appellee herein filed a mortgage foreclosure action against Faulkner, the appellant herein and certain others. Notice of lis pendens was also filed. The appellant answered this foreclosure action, contending his prior recorded lien takes priority over the appellee’s mortgage. Both the appellant and the appellee moved for summary judgments, each contending their claim was prior to the other’s. After hearing thereon, the final summary judgment appealed herein was entered.
On appeal, the appellant contends the trial court erred in holding that a mortgage executed in favor of a party other than the vendor, in order to finance a part of the purchase price, is superior in dignity to a prior recorded judgment lien against the mortgagor-vendee. The reason therefor being that the mortgage lien is not a true purchase money mortgage, in that the mortgage was not executed in favor of the vendor but in favor of a third party.
The appellant’s contention is without merit and this case will be affirmed on the authority of Associates Discount Corporation v. Gomes, 338 So. 2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Shilling v. Bank of Sulphur Springs, 147 So. 218 (Fla.1933); Cheves v. First National Bank of Gainesville, 79 Fla. 34, 83 So. 870 (1920); 2 Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions, § 32.04(1). In the latter authority, the following is found:
“As long as it is executed in conjunction with the purchase and given as security for a portion of the purchase price, it is a purchase money mortgage, although the money is advanced by a third party and the mortgage is executed in his favor.” page 32-27.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bancflorida v. Hayward, 689 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1997)…s of a third-party mortgage loan are used to purchase property, the mortgage on that property is also considered to be a purchase money mortgage. Cheves v. First Nat’l Bank, 79 Fla. 34, 83 So. 870 (1920); Sarmiento v. Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co., 399 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 2 Ralph E. Boyer & William H. Ryan, Florida Real Estate Transactions § 32.22 (1996), explains: The most common real property security transaction involves a “purchase money” loan from a bank, savings and loan association, or oth…
-
Citibank Mortg. Corp. v. Carteret Sav. Bank, 612 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ant Citibank Mortgage Corporation with respect to the subject property. The parties do not dispute purchase money mortgages have priority over judgment liens previously entered against the purchaser. See Sarmiento v. Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co., 399 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA1981) and County of Pinellas v. Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 214 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA1968). However, Citibank contends the trial court erred when it determined Carteret’s mortgage constituted a purchase money mortgage. In the al…
Authorities Cited
- Cheves v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 79 Fla. 34 (Fla. 1920)
- Assocs. Disc. Corp. & William A. Ingraham, Jr. v. Gomes, 338 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Schilling v. Bank of Sulphur Springs, 109 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1933)