PENN-MAR-FLORIDA CORPORATION
v.
ANDREW DEIS
In foreclosure proceedings it appears that when the complainant took an assignment of the mortgage he had or reasonably should have had notice or knowledge from records, occupancy of the lots and other circumstances,, that Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Block B of Orange Crest Subdivision, being a subdivision of Lots 4 and 5 of Block 4, Section 23, Township 33 S., Range 28 E., Highlands County, Florida, which were included in the mortgage, were occupied and were involved in a controversy as to their release from the mortgage. As to such lots the decree for the complainant is reversed and in other respects the decree is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kremser v. Hadigher Tonokaboni, 356 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…” status. Therefore, as assignees with knowledge (actual or imputed), appellants received only those rights and benefits available to their assignor, Stewart. Chandler v. Davis, 139 Fla. 469, 190 So. 873 (1939); Penn-Mar-Florida Corporation v. Deis, 118 Fla. 766, 160 So. 191 (1935); United of Florida, Inc. v. Illini Federal Savings & Loan Association, 341 So. 2d 793 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); see also Marucci v. Linder, 177 So. 2d 237 (Fla.2d DCA 1965) and Coplan Pipe and Supply Company v. Ben-Frieda Corporation, 2…