NATHAN F. VINING
v.
WILLIAM J. HERMAN
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.
This case concerns a mortgage foreclosure where a third party was in actual adverse occupancy of a portion of the land under a verbal purchase contract. The court held that the mortgagee had notice of the occupant's rights.
Yes, the mortgagee is put on notice to inquire about the rights of the occupants when property is actually occupied by someone other than the mortgagor at the time of the mortgage.
“In the proceedings to foreclose a mortgage lien upon lands, it appears that when the mortgage was executed a third person .was residing upon and was in the actual adverse occupancy of a portion of the land under a verbal contract of purchase of long standing, there being a residence with a fence around it.”
Describes the factual background regarding the third-party occupant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgage was foreclosed on land. At the time of the mortgage's execution, a third person was in actual adverse occupancy of a portion of the land un…
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.
In the proceedings to foreclose a mortgage lien upon lands, it appears that when the mortgage was executed a third person .was residing upon and was in *822the actual adverse occupancy of a portion of the land under a verbal contract of purchase of long standing, there being a residence with a fence around it.
■ It appears that the adverse occupant of a portion of the land did not know of the mortgage until after it was executed; and no equity is shown to estop such adverse occupant from intervening and defending against the mortgage.
“Where at the time property is mortgaged it is actually occupied by others' than the mortgagor, the mortgagee is thereby put upon notice to enquire as to the rights of the occupants.” H. N. 2, Crozier v. Ange, 85 Fla. 120, 95 So. 426.
Affirmed.
, Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Uly O. Thompson, 120 Fla. 860 (Fla. 1935)…to seek correction of such alleged errors in the form of ballots prior to the casting by the people of the alleged irregular tickets furnished to them for voting purposes by the State. Compare: State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Hill, 116 Fla. 835, 156 Sou. Rep. 891. We pass now to a consideration of the constitutionality of Chapter 17085, Acts 1935, which has been heretofore referred to as Senate Bill No. 4. • It is urged by respondent that said Chapter 17085, supra, was neither framed nor enacted in conform…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Jim Fair v. Adams, 139 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1962)…he will or not; otherwise, if he should decline, their votes will be thrown away. * * * ” Riley v. Cordell, 194 P. 2d 859. We are further buttressed in our view by the decision of this court in State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hill, 116 Fla. 835, 156 So. 891. There, in an original proceeding in quo warranto, an attack was leveled against the title to office claimed by a group of city councilmen. The ballot contained the names of seven candidates under the following heading: “For two year term Vote for…
Authorities Cited
- Crozier v. Ange, 85 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1923)