FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, IN ITS CORPORATE CAPACITY, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY AND JOSEPHINE VALENTE, HUSBAND AND WIFE; AND BAFA 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 FDIC appealed summary judgment dismissing its foreclosure action against the Valentes and Bafa Corporation, who claimed the debt was satisfied by a lien release filed in the public record. The appellate court reversed, holding that disputed issues of material fact regarding whether the lien release was executed by mistake precluded summary judgment.
A lien release recorded in the public record, although prima facie evidence of discharge of the debt, is not conclusive when there are disputed issues of material fact regarding fraud, accident, or mistake. Because a document filed in public records remains susceptible to reformation, summary judgment was improper where the parties disputed the validity and intent of the satisfaction clause.
[1] A lien release filed in the public record is not an absolute bar to recovery if the contesting party can prove fraud, accident, or mistake.
[2] A satisfaction recorded in the public record is susceptible of reformation and is not conclusive when its validity is challenged.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although recordation of a release in the public record may be prima facie evidence of the discharge of the debt, the contesting party may prove fraud, accident or mistake so that his rights will not be adversely affected.”
Establishes that a recorded release is not conclusive evidence of debt discharge and can be challenged on grounds of fraud, accident, or mistake.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe FDIC sued on two notes secured by property and sought foreclosure. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense of satisfaction of indebtedness …
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 Reformation Of Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), plaintiff below, appeals summary judgment for the defendants/appel-lees in a foreclosure action, contending that the court erred in concluding that a lien release filed in the public record extinguished the debt owed upon. We find that an issue of material fact concerning the validity of the lien release and precluding summary judgment was presented to the trial court, and therefore we reverse.
The appellant brought this suit on the balance due on two notes and for foreclosure on a piece of property allegedly securing both notes. The appellees, Anthony and Josephine Valente and Bafa Corporation, answered with the affirmative defense of satisfaction of indebtedness, relying on the satisfaction clause in a lien release which was filed by FDIC in the public records to release for sale certain other property securing the notes. This form release contained a clause stating that the debt the property secured had been extinguished.
The FDIC replied to this affirmative defense with the defense of mutual mistake of fact, mistake of law or scrivener’s error and requested reformation of the clause in the lien release that purports to acknowledge full payment. The appellees then moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the cancellation of the mortgage and a cancellation of a note, recorded in the public records, is an absolute bar and extinguishment of the note and mortgage. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Janet Valente, who asserted that the parties agreed the indebtedness was intended to be extinguished.
The FDIC presented affidavits of FDIC personnel in opposition to the motion, supporting its claim that the debt was not intended to be satisfied by the lien release. The FDIC also submitted copies of its correspondence with Janet Yalente and evidence that the FDIC retained both of the instruments sued upon.
Although recordation of a release in the public record may be prima facie evidence of the discharge of the debt, the contesting party may prove fraud, accident or mistake so that his rights will not be adversely affected. See Biggs v. Smith, 134 Fla. 569, 184 So. 106, 107 (Fla.1938). Because a document that has been filed in the public records is still susceptible of reformation, a satisfaction recorded in the public record is not conclusive where the court is presented with the issue of the validity of the satisfaction. See Bagnasco v. Smith, 382 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We find that this issue was adequately presented, and that summary judgment was thus improper. Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovett v. U.S. Bank, 183 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as. to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”); FDIC v. Valente, 553 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“Because a document that has been filed in the public records is still susceptible of reformation, a satisfaction recorded in the public record is not conclusive where the court is presented with the issue of the validity of…
Authorities Cited
- Biggs v. Smith, 134 Fla. 569 (Fla. 1938)
- Bagnasco v. Smith, 382 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)