MID-STATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FORT WALTON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 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.
Mid-State Investment Corporation sought to re-foreclose a mortgage that had been recorded before the defendant's junior mortgage. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, holding that re-foreclosure against an omitted junior mortgagee is available when the original foreclosure proceeding did not include that party.
Re-foreclosure is available under the circumstances alleged. While the plaintiff may not be entitled to the exact relief specifically prayed for if based on a demurrer, if the facts allege sufficient grounds for foreclosure relief consistent with the general prayer, the complaint should not be dismissed.
“But the fact that complainant might not be entitled to the exact relief specifically prayed for is not ground for demurrer, if upon the facts alleged and under the general prayer complainant is entitled to any relief consistent therewith.”
Establishes the standard for when a complaint should not be dismissed for demurrer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMid-State Investment Corporation held a mortgage on real property securing a promissory note from Mr. and Mrs. J. B. Kyser. After Mid-State's mortgage…
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 To Redeem cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal by plaintiff below from an order finally dismissing its complaint seeking re-foreclosure of a real property mortgage. The order appealed is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The complaint charged, in substance, that Mr. and Mrs. J. B. Kyser (defendants against whom a decree pro confesso was entered) executed and delivered to plaintiff a mortgage on real property to secure their promissory note in plaintiff’s favor which mortgage was duly filed and recorded in Okaloosa County, Florida; that subsequent to recordation of plaintiff’s mortgage the appellee, a party defendant to this cause, recorded in said county a mortgage on said property, and that it is inferior to plaintiff’s mortgage; that by a prior suit, in which the appellee was not made a party, plaintiff foreclosed its mortgage, purchased the property at the foreclosure sale, and holds title pursuant thereto. The complaint made all necessary allegations against the defendant mortgagors to entitle plaintiff to foreclosure and prayed that said mortgage be foreclosed and for other relief.
The defendant-appellee moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, inter alia, that it failed to state a claim for equitable relief, and this appeal seeks review of the order of dismissal based thereon.
The sole point for determination is whether reforeclosure is available under the circumstances alleged. It is answered in the affirmative on the authority of Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shores Corporation, 100 Fla. 413, 129 So. 690, 73 A.L.R. 600, in which the Florida Supreme Court said:
“But the fact that complainant might not be entitled to the exact relief specifically prayed for is not ground for demurrer, if upon the facts alleged and under the general prayer complainant is entitled to any relief consistent therewith.
“Upon the facts alleged, complainant is certainly entitled to a foreclosure de novo against the omitted junior mortgagee. The question is as to the propriety of the mode of relief selected. The bill of complaint alleges facts sufficient to justify relief by foreclosure and sale if that be hereafter determined to be the equitable course. So the bill is not without equity. The nature of the relief to which the complainant is ultimately entitled depends upon the defense interposed by the junior mortgagee. If no countervailing equities are shown, a decree may be entered requiring the junior mortgagee to redeem or be barred.”
Appellee has not favored this court with a brief in reply to appellant’s brief. We suggest that while it is not compulsory to do so — and concededly difficult in the face of such clear precedent as the Quinn case— the trial judge whose decision is under attack deserved to have it supported before this court by the party whose pleadings and advocacy in his court brought him to err.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and .WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raskin v. Otten, 273 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…gagee. Quinn Plumbing Company, Inc. v. New Miami Shores Corporation, 100 Fla. 413, 129 So. 690 (1930); Polster v. General Guaranty Mortgage Company, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 484; Mid-State Investment Corp. v. Fort Walton Land Dev. Co., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 289. It was not the appellees’ intention to cancel their second mortgage as to the appellants and they cannot now be estopped from exercising their right to eliminate those junior lien holders. Appellants second argument deals with the part of the fina…
-
Polster v. Gen. Guar. Mortg. Co., Inc., 180 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…d independent action was no longer necessary after adoption of the rule. The right of reforeclosure against an omitted junior mortgagee exists as a matter of substantive law. Mid-State Investment Corporation v. Fort Walton Land Development Company, 145 So. 2d 289 (Fla.App.1962); Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shores Corporation, 100 Fla. 413, 129 So. 690, 73 A.L.R. 600 (1930). The trial court did not err in concluding that reforeclosure was not barred under the so-called “doctrine of compulsory counterclaim…
-
FNS4, LLC v. Sec. Bank, N.A., 88 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ion setting aside the final judgment, without prejudice to the bank filing a separate action to reforeclose on its mortgage. See Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shores Corp., 129 So. 690 (Fla.1930); Mid-State Inv. Corp. v. Fort Walton Land Dev. Co., 145 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Quinn Plumbing Co., Inc. v. New Miami Shores Corp., 100 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1930)
- Lucky Nation, LLC v. Al-Maghazchi (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)