EDMUND MARGIEWICZ AND ELEANORE MARGIEWICZ, HIS WIFE, AND VIOLET FRIEDMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
TERCO PROPERTIES OF MIAMI BEACH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CIRCLE T LAND AND CATTLE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action, holding that while endorsement is required for transfer by negotiation under the Uniform Commercial Code, a promissory note secured by a mortgage can also be validly transferred by assignment, with the mortgage following the note to the assignee.
A note secured by a mortgage may be transferred by assignment even without endorsement. When a note is assigned, the securing mortgage automatically follows the note into the hands of the assignee. Endorsement is required only for transfer by negotiation under the UCC, not for transfer by assignment.
Appellants Margiewicz and Friedman were defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Terco Properties and Circle T Land and Cattle Corporati…
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 Negotiation Of Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final order of involuntary dismissal and final judgment of the trial court, and remand for a new trial on the question whether there was a valid assignment.
The trial court ruled that in the absence of any endorsement, the note (and the mortgage securing the note) could not be transferred. This ruling precluded the presentation of full evidence concerning the validity of the assignment and any defenses to the mortgage foreclosure. Endorsement is a prerequisite to transfer by negotiation. § 673.201, Fla.Stat. (1981).
However, it is also possible to transfer a note by assignment. Moses v. Woodward, 109 Fla. 348, 140 So. 651, reh’g granted, 109 Fla. 348, 141 So. 117 (1932), rev’d on other grounds, 109 Fla. 348, 147 So. 690 (1933). See also Potter v. Smith, 152 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). When a note secured by a mortgage is assigned, the mortgage follows the note into the hands of the assignee. Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. People’s Holding Co., 110 Fla. 451, 149 So. 5 (1933); Baker v. Rowe, 102 Fla. 622, 136 So. 681 (1931); Collins v. W.C. Briggs, Inc., 98 Fla. 422, 123 So. 833 (1929). See also Davis v. West, 114 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beltway Cap., LLC v. The Greens COA, Inc., 153 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…, “[A] mortgage is but an incident to the debt, the payment of which it secures, and its ownership follows the assignment of the debt.” Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 So. 140, 143 (1938); see also Margiewicz v. Terco Prop, of Miami Beach, Inc., 441 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1983)[.] So, when Fannie Mae purchased the Loan, it became the assignee of the first mortgagee by operation of law. Park, 2014 WL 2742947, at *2.2 Thus, regardless of whether there had been' a formal assignment of the mortgage,…
-
Tobias Knoblauch Private Bank v. S. Aero Traders, Inc., 443 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…term of the contract between Perkiomen and the Bank cannot be imposed on Southern by virtue of Southern’s becoming a subsequent possessor of the collateral. A note must be transferred by negotiation or assignment. See Margiewicz v. Terco Properties, 441 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). This note was never assigned or negotiated to Southern. This situation is analogous to a transfer of mortgaged property without a transfer of the note representing the underlying obligation. A lien on mortgaged property follows a…
Authorities Cited
- Mauck v. Therrell, 108 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1933)
- Dodd Lumber & Timber Co., Inc. v. Krusen Land & Timber Co., 105 Fla. 196 (Fla. 1932)
- Adelaide v. Moses, 109 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1932)
- Raymond C. Baker and wife v. Rowe, 102 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1931)
- Mfg. Tr. Co. v. Peoples Holding Co., 110 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1933)
- Duncan v. Davis, 109 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1933)
- Minnie C. Collins and her husband W. E. Collins v. W. C. Briggs, Inc., 98 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1929)
- Davis v. West, 114 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Potter v. Smith, 152 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)