F. J. RATHBUN, D/B/A SCARLETT TRUCK SERVICE, DONALD J. HELLER, PHILLIP SACKS, AND SOUTHERN MATERIALS OF MISSISSIPPI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MERCHANTS BANK OF MIAMI, A FLORIDA 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.
Appellants who defaulted on a promissory note secured by a chattel mortgage sought to avoid foreclosure by claiming the lender waived or was estopped from asserting its acceleration and foreclosure rights when it retained checks sent by the defendants covering delinquent payments. The court affirmed the foreclosure decree, holding that mere retention of checks without negotiation does not constitute waiver or estoppel absent detrimental reliance by the mortgagor.
The court held that mere retention of checks without negotiation does not constitute waiver or estoppel from asserting acceleration and foreclosure rights. Waiver or estoppel requires that the creditor's conduct induce a detrimental change of position by the debtor in reliance on the belief that the creditor will not enforce the mortgage, which did not occur in this case.
“A mortgagee will be held to have waived these rights or be estopped from asserting them where his conduct induces a detrimental change of position by the mortgagor in reliance on the belief that the mortgagee will not enforce his mortgage.”
States the legal standard for waiver and estoppel in the context of acceleration and foreclosure rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 8, 1959, the lender made a loan to the defendants secured by a promissory note and chattel mortgage. The note required monthly payments on …
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 Foreclosure Of Chattel Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, defendants below, seek review of an adverse final decree foreclosing a chattel mortgage given to secure payment of a promissory note.
On January 8, 1959, plaintiff loaned defendants a sum of money receiving from defendants a promissory note and chattel mortgage. The note gave plaintiff the right to accelerate maturity in the' event any installment was not paid within fifteen days after it became due. By the terms of the note, payments were required to be made on the eighth day of the month. On January 9, 1961, plaintiff informed defendants that since the payments due on December 8, 1960, and January 8, 1961, had not been made, plaintiff was exercising its option and declaring the entire unpaid principal due and payable. Defendants were further informed that unless the entire amount due, or in the alternative, the delinquent payments plus certain charges- and attorney’s fees, was paid by January 13, 1961, plaintiff would institute foreclosure proceedings. When payment was not received, plaintiff, on January 13, 1961, filed the complaint in this action. After the filing of the action, defendants sent plaintiff checks covering the delinquent payments and the payment due on February 8, 1961, but not the charges and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff retained possession of these checks but made no attempt to negotiate them. The cause came to trial and the chancellor entered the decree appealed, foreclosing the mortgage and ordering sale of the security. Sale was duly held, no objections thereto being filed by defendants who instituted this appeal.
Defendants contend that by retaining possession of the checks plaintiff (1) waived its rights to accelerate maturity of the note and foreclose on the mortgage, and (2) is now estopped from asserting these rights. We find these contentions to be without merit.
The principles governing questions of waiver and estoppel are, in most respects, the same in cases involving the right to accelerate maturity of a note and the right to foreclose a mortgage. A mortgagee will be held to have waived these rights or be estopped from asserting them where his conduct induces a detrimental change of position by the mortgagor in reliance on the belief that the mortgagee will not enforce his mortgage. See Harrell v. Lombard, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 625; Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64, 16 So.2d 650; Jaudon v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 102 Fla. 782, 136 So. 517; Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751.
*541The record in this case discloses no detrimental change of position by defendants in reliance on conduct of the plaintiff indicating that plaintiff would not foreclose its mortgage.
We conclude that the chancellor was correct in his application of the principles of law to the evidence adduced in this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004 (Fla. 1929)
- Jaudon v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 102 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1931)
- Spessard L. Holland v. Watson, 154 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1944)
- Harrell v. Lombard, 122 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Ortega Co. v. Meeker, 154 Fla. 56 (Fla. 1944)
- Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1944)