DONNA L. LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF JOHN J. TURCOL, DECEASED, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a promissory note naming two payees with no survivorship language controls over a mortgage designating joint tenancy with survivorship, so the deceased's one-half interest in the note passes to his estate rather than automatically to the co-payee.
When a promissory note and mortgage conflict regarding the relationship between co-payees/mortgagees, the note's terms prevail, and absent express survivorship language in the note, the deceased's interest passes to the estate.
[1] When a promissory note and mortgage contain conflicting provisions regarding the relationship between co-payees or mortgagees, the terms of the note control, and survivor…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“When a conflict exists between the terms of a note and the provisions of a mortgage, such as in the instant case, where the relationship described between the two persons named as payees in the note directly conflicts with the relationship specified between the two persons named as mortgagees in the mortgage instrument, the terms of the note should prevail.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal rule when note and mortgage terms conflict.
Lewis and Turcol were named as payees on a promissory note with no language describing their relationship, and as mortgagees on a securing mortgage de…
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 Right Of Survivorship cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Donna L. Lewis appeals an order overruling her objection to the inventory filed in the Estate of John J. Tureol, deceased. The inventory included a promissory note naming Lewis and Tureol as payees with no other language indicating any relationship between the two, as well as a mortgage securing the note that designates mortgagees Lewis and Tureol “as joint tenants with right of surviv-orship and not as tenants in common.” Lewis’ objection alleged that the note and mortgage passed to her upon Turcol’s death and was improperly included in the inventory. The trial court disagreed and held that Tur-col’s personal representative owned an undivided one-half interest in the note secured by the mortgage. We agree and affirm.
When a conflict exists between the terms of a note and the provisions of a mortgage, such as in the instant case, where the relationship described between the two persons named as payees in the note directly conflicts with the relationship specified between the two persons named as mortgagees in the mortgage instrument, the terms of the note should prevail. Hotel Management Co. v. Krickl, 117 Fla. 626, 158 So. 118 (1934); Gibbs v. Hicks, 146 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); see also § 689.15, Fla. Stat. (1997), indicating that the doctrine of the right of survivorship shall not prevail in Florida unless the instrument creating the estate expressly provides for survivorship.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland v. Crown Fin., LLC, 183 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…e note.” Id. (quoting Taylor v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Pensacola, 63 Fla. 631, 57 So. 678 (1912)). “When a conflict exists between the terms of a note and the provisions of a mortgage ... the terms of the note should prevail.” Lewis v. Estate of Turcol, 709 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Effect should be given to both the note and mortgage, however, “where there is no actual or necessary conflict.” Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. Krickl, 117 Fla. 626, 158 So. 118, 119 (1934). Appellee argues, as it did below, that any…
Authorities Cited
- Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. Krickl, 117 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1934)
- Gibbs v. Hicks, 146 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)