MINNIE I. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
J. A. METZLER AND ELIZABETH METZLER, HIS WIFE; FRED SMITH AND ELLA B. SMITH, HIS WIFE; AMY RIDGLEY, A SINGLE WOMAN; ADDISON WHEELER, CITIZENS BANK & TRUST CO., A CORPORATION, AND AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO., A 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decree that a mortgage executed by Fred Smith and wife to George Bryant in 1928 was not a renewal of an earlier Bryant mortgage under the terms of the Metzler second mortgage, and therefore did not retain priority over the Metzler lien. The court held that because the new mortgage involved new and different consideration (cash and securities to the Smiths), it could not constitute a renewal as contemplated by the mortgage instrument.
The court held that the new mortgage was not a renewal of the original Bryant mortgage because it was executed for new and entirely different consideration. The Smiths received not only satisfaction of the original mortgage but also a large sum of money and valuable securities, making it impossible to characterize the transaction as a renewal. The court noted that Minnie I. Smith might have established subrogation rights to the extent of $2,000 but did not attempt to do so.
“If, in the event a renewal is secured of the first mortgage of $12,000.00 that the same shall remain a First Mortgage against the premises above described and that the indebtedness herein secured shall be Second, and subject to the First Mortgage of $12,000.00, as though the present mortgage had not been renewed.”
The renewal clause in the Metzler second mortgage that is central to the dispute regarding priority of liens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1924, Fred Smith and wife purchased land from the Metzlers and assumed payment of a $12,000 Bryant mortgage while executing a second mortg…
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 Foreclosure Of Second Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
—In this case Fred Smith and wife in December, 1924, purchased a parcel of land from Metzler and wife and assumed as a part of the purchase price the payment of a $12,000.00 mortgage held by one Bryant and also made and executed to Metzler a second mortgage to secure the balance of the purchase price. The second mortgage contained, amongst other things, the following clause:
“It is expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that this mortgage is a Second Mortgage, and is given subject to a First Mortgage of $12,000.00 in favor of George W. Bryant. It is further agreed; If, in the event a renewal is secured of the first mortgage of $12,000.00 that the same shall remain a First Mortgage against the premises above described and that the indebtedness herein secured shall be Second, and subject to the First Mortgage of $12,000.00, as though the present mortgage had not been renewed. Intending by the foregoing that a new mortgage for $12,000.00 may be taken as such renewal.”
*316"When the Bryant mortgage had been paid, probably in full but certainly down to $2,000.00, the Smiths, in April, 1928, and about a month after Metzler had begun foreclosure proceedings, made a deal with Bryant and one Minnie I. Smith whereby they made a new mortgage to Bryant for $12,000.00. Bryant endorsed the notes without recourse and delivered them to Minnie I. Smith, together with an assignment of the new mortgage, and Minnie I. Smith delivered to Fred Smith and wife cash and securities in the sum of $12,000.00, or probably in the sum of $12,000.00 less $2,000.00. There is evidence to sustain either proposition in the record and the Chancellor evidently found the former proposition to have been established. The Metzlers filed suit to foreclose their second mortgage and, by amendment, included as defendants all necessary parties and the parties now before this Court. Fred Smith and wife filed answer, as did also Minnie I. Smith. (It appears that Minnie I. Smith is not related to Fred Smith and wife).
Replication was filed to the answers.
The issues presented were whether or not the last mortgage made by the Smiths to Bryant and immediately transferred by him to Minnie I. Smith was a renewal of the original Bryant mortgage as contemplated by the provisions above quoted contained in the mortgage from Fred Smith and wife to the Metzlers and was, therefore, prior in dignity to the Metzler mortgage. The Chancellor held that it was not. The evidence shows conclusively that the mortgage executed by Fred Smith and wife to Bryant was for the purpose of procuring from Minnie I. Smith money and securities in the sum of $12,000.00, though it may be that $2,000.00 of it was to go, and did go, to Bryant to pay off the first mortgage. However, at any rate, the new mortgage was made for a new and entirely different consideration and there flowed to the *317Smiths not only the satisfaction of the original mortgage bnt a large snm of money and valuable securities in addition thereto. It could in no sense be held to be a renewal of the original obligation.
It may be under the facts of the case that Minnie I. Smith could have established her right to subrogation to the lien of the original Bryant mortgage to the extent of $2,000.00 but certainly she could have done no more than that and this she did not attempt to do.
A careful perusal of the record discloses no reversible error. Therefore, the decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruth E. Feemster under will of Robert M. Feemster v. Schurkman, 291 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…including the Plaintiff, but after wrestling with the problem and recalling the testimony in the cause and studying the briefs of the parties and the cases cited therein, the Court finds that the controlling cases must be Smith vs. Metzler, et al. [104 Fla. 315], 139 So. 823 and Guaranty Title & Trust Co. vs. Thompson [93 Fla. 983], 113 So. [117] 118. “(E) The ‘option to mortgage’ which was recorded by the Defendants (except CARIBBEAN) was taken by those Defendants with the knowledge that if there was a d…
-
Theo Hirsch v. Lincoln Sec. Co., 118 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1934)…o assert his rights as a superior lien on the land as against the owner who acquired title with knowledge of the unsatisfied outstanding later mortgage. See Hilton v. Northern Central Trust Company, 114 Fla. 796, 154 Sou. Rep. 328; Smith v. Metzler, 104 Fla. 315, 139 Sou. Rep. 823; Thompson on Real Property, Vol. 5, Sec. 4264; 1 Jones on Mortgages, Par. 738, and cases there cited. In a case such as this, equity will not permit a first mortgagee to escape the burdens of a transaction wholly favorable to his…