SUBURBAN NURSING AND MOBILE HOMES, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLIOT AND FELECIA SHAW, 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.
Suburban Nursing sought equitable subrogation against the Shaws, who guaranteed a note, after Suburban's collateral was used to pay off the underlying debt when the note maker defaulted. The court held that a pledgor who loses collateral to satisfy a debt is equitably subrogated to the creditor's rights and may pursue recovery against an absolute guarantor of the note.
A party who pledges collateral to secure a note and loses the collateral to pay off the underlying debt after the maker defaults is equitably subrogated to the creditor's rights and is entitled to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an absolute guarantor of the note.
[1] A party who pledges collateral to secure a note and loses that collateral to the creditor to pay off the underlying debt after the maker defaults is equitably subrogated…
[2] A party equitably subrogated to a creditor's rights may pursue a claim against an absolute guarantor of the note to recoup their loss.
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“whether a party, as here, who (a) pledges collateral to secure a note, and (b) loses the collateral to the creditor to pay off the underlying debt after the maker of the note defaults, is equitably subrogated to the rights of the creditor so that he may recoup his loss against an absolute guarantor of the note”
Statement of the issue presented to the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuburban pledged collateral to secure a note. The maker of the note defaulted. The collateral was lost to the creditor to pay off the underlying debt.…
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 Equitable Subrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment and a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of the defendants Elliot and Felecia Shaw [hereinafter Shaws] in an action sounding in equitable subrogation brought below by the plaintiff Suburban Nursing and Mobile Homes, Inc. [hereinafter Suburban], The issue presented is whether a party, as here, who (a) pledges collateral to secure a note, and (b) loses the collateral to the creditor to pay off the underlying debt after the maker of the note defaults, is equitably subrogated to the rights of the creditor so that he may recoup his loss against an absolute guarantor of the note.
We conclude that such a party is equitably subrogated to the creditor’s rights under these circumstances and is entitled to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an absolute guarantor of the note. See First National Bank of Pennsylvania v. United States, 398 F.Supp. 100, 102 (W.D.Pa.1975); Cuesta, Rey & Co. v. Newsom, 102 Fla. 853, 136 So. 551 (1931); Anderson v. Trade Winds Enterprises Corp., 241 So. 2d 174, 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 244 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1971); Weinstein v. Susskind, 162 So. 2d 683, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Ulery v. Asphalt Paving, Inc., 119 So. 2d 432, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). See generally Cappucio, Subrogation in Florida, 21 U.Miami L.Rev. 240 (1966).
This being so, it is plain that the trial court in the instant case was in error (1) in entering summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants Shaw, two of the absolute guarantors on the defaulted note herein, and (2) in denying the plaintiff Suburban, the pledgor of the collateral herein which satisfied the subject note, a summary judgment in its favor against the defendants Shaw. The final judgment under review is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff Suburban.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Trade Winds Enters. Corp., 241 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Lennie L. Ulery v. Asphalt Paving, Inc., 119 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Cuesta v. Newsom, 102 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1931)
- Trade Winds Enters. Corp. v. Anderson, 244 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1971)
- Serafin B. Delgado v. Standard OIL Co., 244 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1971)
- de Pasquale v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 162 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Weinstein v. Susskind, 162 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)