JAMES F. PERRY & COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CRSJ, INC., 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.
The Lender appeals from a summary judgment order declaring that a mortgage executed by CRSJ has no force and effect. The trial court determined the mortgage lien terminated five years after its maturity date because no recorded extension agreement was executed, and the court affirms.
The mortgage lien has no force and effect because it terminated five years after its stated maturity date of October 1, 2008, and the Lender did not execute a recorded extension agreement with the mortgagor to preserve the lien before termination.
[1] A mortgage lien terminates five years after its stated maturity date unless the lienholder takes action to foreclose or records an agreement extending the maturity date.
[2] An agreement to extend the maturity date of a mortgage must be recorded to be effective in extending the lien's validity.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the lien of the subject mortgage terminated five years after its stated maturity date of October 1, 2008”
Establishes the basis for finding the mortgage had no force and effect under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCRSJ executed a mortgage on property it owned with a stated maturity date of October 1, 2008. The Lender failed to foreclose prior to the lien's termi…
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.
James F. Perry & Company (“the Lender”) appeals from an order entering partial summary final judgment in favor of CRSJ, *927Inc., in which the trial court determined that a mortgage executed by CRSJ on property owned by CRSJ “shall have no force and effect.” We affirm.
We find it unnecessary to set forth the facts leading to the trial court’s order and write solely to indicate the lack of merit in the Lender’s position. We find the trial court correctly determined that the subject mortgage “shall have no force and effect” because the lien of the subject mortgage terminated five years after its stated maturity date of October 1, 2008. See § 95.281(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). Prior to the termination of the lien, the Lender took no action to foreclose the mortgage, and at no time did the parties execute and record an agreement extending the maturity date of the mortgage. See § 95.281(2), Fla. Stat. (2013) (providing that “[i]f an extension agreement executed by the mortgagee ... and the mortgagor ... is recorded, the time shall be extended ....”) (emphasis added); Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. of Fla. v. 2275 W. Corp., 905 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (rejecting mortgagee’s “claim that its lien is still valid because correspondence between the parties ... extended the maturity date of the mortgage” where the correspondence was not only .“indefinite in all particulars,” but “also does not comply with the recordation requirements mandated by section 95.281(2), of the Florida Statutes, which extends the life of the mortgage lien ‘[i]f an extension agreement executed by the mortgage ... and the mortgagor ... is recorded’ ” (brackets in original) (quoting § 95.281(2))); Zlinkoff v. Von Aldenbruck, 765 So.2d 840, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that section 95.281 requires that an extension of the maturity date set forth in the mortgage must be recorded in order to extend the time to file a foreclosure action, and that the parties did not enter into a valid extension although there was evidence that there was an oral agreement and an unrecorded written agreement to extend the final maturity date). Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. OF Fla. v. 2275 W. Corp., 905 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Zlinkoff v. VON Aldenbruck, 765 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)