FIDELITY BANK OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOI THI NGUYEN, ET AL., 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.
Fidelity Bank appealed a summary judgment that subordinated its first-recorded mortgage to a later-recorded mortgage due to a scrivener's error in the legal description (page 3 instead of page 8 in the plat book). The court reversed, holding that the error was minor and did not defeat constructive notice.
The court held that the scrivener's error was minor and insufficient to defeat constructive notice. Fidelity Bank's mortgage, which correctly identified the property owner, lot numbers, subdivision name, and plat book, was sufficient to place Nguyen on constructive notice of Fidelity Bank's superior mortgage interest.
[1] A scrivener's error in the page number of a mortgage's legal description does not necessarily defeat constructive notice of the mortgage's priority if other identifying i…
[2] A mortgage is sufficient to provide constructive notice if it correctly names the property owner, identifies the lots and subdivision name, and correctly identifies the p…
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“Appellant's mortgage was sufficient to place Appellee on constructive notice of Appellant's superior mortgage”
Establishes the core holding that the scrivener's error did not prevent constructive notice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFidelity Bank held a mortgage on property in Crystal Lake Park subdivision (Lots 12 and 13). The mortgage correctly identified the property owner, lot…
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 Legal Description Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the summary judgment that declared Appellee’s mortgage superior in priority to Appellant’s first-recorded mortgage because of a scrivener’s error in the legal description in Appellant’s mortgage. Concluding that Appellant’s mortgage was sufficient to place Appellee on constructive notice of Appellant’s superior mortgage, we reverse the summary judgment.
The mortgage in favor of Appellant correctly named the property owner, correctly identified the lots and the subdivision’s name, Crystal Lake Park, and correctly identified the plat book in which the plat was recorded. However, it misidentified the page number within the plat book as page three instead of page eight. In fact, page three of the same plat book contained the plat for East Colonial Heights subdivision, not Crystal Lake Park.
Appellant filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint, alleging that the owner defaulted on its promissory note by failing to make the payments. It joined Appellee as a defendant. Appellee filed her answer and affirmative defenses, alleging, inter alia, that her interest was superior to Appellant’s because Appellant’s mortgage improperly described the property as “Lots 12 and 13 in Plat Book J, Page 3,” rather than the appropriate description “Lots 12 and 13 in Plat Book J, Page 8.” (Emphasis supplied.) Appellee claimed that, as a result of Appellant’s error, she did not have actual or constructive notice of its mortgage. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with Ap-pellee and ordered that the foreclosure proceed with Appellant in the subordinate position.
Appellant urges that the minor omission here does not defeat its claim that Appel-lee was on constructive notice of its superi- or interest in the property. It cites several cases in support of its position, two of which we find particularly compelling. Sickler v. Melbourne State Bank, 118 Fla. 468, 159 So. 678 (1935); Merrell v. Ridgely, 62 Fla. 546, 57 So. 352 (1912). Appellee does not address either case. Based on these authorities, we reverse the summary judgment and direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Appellant declaring that its position is superior to that of Appellee.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J. and JACOBUS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regions Bank v. Albert and Adrienne Deluca, 97 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ate section); Merrell v. Ridgely, 62 Fla. 546, 57 So. 352, 353 (1912) (holding description of land by lot and block number of named subdivision sufficient despite reference to an incorrect plat book for the subdivision); Fid. Bank of Fla. v. Nguyen, 44 So. 3d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding description of land by lot and block number of a subdivision identified by name and the designation of the correct plat book sufficient despite reference to an incorrect page number of the plat book), review denied…
Authorities Cited
- Sickler v. Melbourne State Bank, 118 Fla. 468 (Fla. 1935)
- Merrell v. Vincent Ridgely and Others, 62 Fla. 546 (Fla. 1911)