HOWARD SAVINGS BANK, APPELLANT,
v.
EASTERN FEDERAL CORPORATION, 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.
Howard Savings Bank appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dissolve writs of garnishment served on shopping center tenants by a judgment creditor. The court reverses, holding that the Bank's assignment of rents clause in its mortgage took priority over the later-filed garnishment writs upon the mortgagor's default and the Bank's written demand.
The Bank's assignment of rents interest is superior to the later-filed garnishment writs because, under Florida Statute § 697.07, the assignment became absolute and operative upon the mortgagor's default and the mortgagee's written demand, which occurred on July 23, 1991, before the garnishment writs were served on September 27, 1991.
[1] An assignment of rents clause in a mortgage becomes absolute and operative upon the mortgagor's default and written demand by the mortgagee, pursuant to Florida Statutes…
[2] A mortgagee's interest in rents, established by an operative assignment of rents clause, is superior to a judgment creditor's subsequently filed garnishment writs.
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“such assignment shall be absolute upon the mortgagor's default, becoming operative upon written demand made by the mortgagee”
Statutory language from Fla. Stat. § 697.07 that establishes when an assignment of rents clause becomes operative and enforceable against third parties.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCedar Hills Properties Corporation owned Cedar Hills Shopping Center and defaulted on a mortgage to Howard Savings Bank in May 1991. On July 23, 1991,…
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 Mortgage Default cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant, Howard Savings Bank [Bank], appeals 12 final judgments entered against garnishee tenants of Cedar Hills Shopping Center as well as the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dissolve the writs of garnishment issued pursuant to those judgments. We reverse and remand.
On January 10, 1990, appellee, Eastern Federal Corporation, obtained a money judgment against Cedar Hills Properties Corporation [Cedar Hills], the owner/landlord of the Cedar Hills Shopping Center. For satisfaction of those judgments, beginning on September 27, 1991, appellee caused to be served writs of garnishment upon the various tenants of the shopping center in an effort to garnish the rents being paid to Cedar Hills Properties Corporation. After the trial court denied appellant Bank’s motion to dissolve those writs, final judgments were entered against the tenants in appellee’s favor. Meanwhile, in May 1991, Cedar Hills had defaulted on a mortgage given by it to appellant Bank. The mortgage agreement contained an assignment of rents clause that could be activated upon default under the mortgage. On July 23, 1991, the Bank had provided written notice to Cedar Hills of the enforcement of the assignment of rents clause.
Section 697.07, Florida Statutes (1989) provides that if a mortgage contains an assignment of rents clause, “such assignment shall be absolute upon the mortgagor’s default, becoming operative upon written demand made by the mortgagee.” Since, pursuant to that statute, the assignment of rents to appellant Bank became absolute and operative by July 23, 1991, appellant’s interest in the rents is a superi-or interest to appellee’s later filed writs of garnishment. Thereupon, the trial court’s order on the motion to dissolve the writs of garnishment is reversed, as are the consequent final judgments entered against the 12 garnishee tenants. This cause is remanded with directions that the trial court enter an order dissolving the writs of garnishment. See Citizens and Southern National Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 602 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Molko, 584 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Oakbrooke Associates v. Insurance Commissioner, 581 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ocean Bank v. 107 Ave. Off. Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 95 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…Fla. Stat. (2010), and the appellant mortgagee Ocean Bank, which maintained a separate but contemporaneous action to foreclose its mortgage and an accompanying assignment of rents. See § 697.07, Fla. Stat. (2003); Howard Sav. Bank v. E. Fed. Corp., 614 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1993). We find no error except for that portion of the order which credits the association for the attorneys’ fees payable in its foreclosure proceedings. There is no basis for deducting this sum from the mortgagee-assign-ee’s share of the rent…
Authorities Cited
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Molko, 584 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Oakbrooke Assocs., Ltd. v. Ins. Comm'r OF the State OF Cal., 581 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Moise Jean Baptist v. Golden GEM Growers & Prof'l Administrators, Inc., 602 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)