GULAM JAFFER
v.
153 REHC LLC, ETC.
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.
A party's prior suit on a promissory note and recordation of a judgment does not constitute an election of remedies precluding later enforcement of the mortgage.
[1] A prior suit on a promissory note and recordation of a judgment on the note does not constitute an election of remedies that precludes later enforcement of a mortgage.
[2] Parties seeking to enforce a mortgage must have paid documentary stamp and intangible taxes on the principal mortgage amounts claimed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulam Jaffer appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County involving a dispute with 153 REHC LLC regarding a promissory note and 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 Election Of Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See NLG, LLC v. Hazan, 151 So. 3d 455, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (noting a party’s “prior suit on the promissory note and recordation of a judgment on the note was not an election of remedies precluding the later enforcement of the mortgage.”); Nikooie v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 424, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (noting the parties needed to have paid documentary stamp and intangible taxes on the principal mortgage amounts claimed by them); Barton v. MetroJax Prop. Holdings, LLC, 207 So. 3d 304, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“‘[Section] 701.02’s recording requirement is applicable only to (and enforceable by) competing creditors or subsequent bona fide purchasers of the mortgagee, not by the mortgagor.’” (quoting JP Morgan Chase v. New Millennial, LC, 6 So. 3d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); § 95.11(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (providing that the statute of limitations is five years for “[a]n action to foreclose a mortgage.”); § 687.03, Fla. Stat. (noting “if any loan, . . . or obligation exceeds $500,000 in amount or value, it shall not be usury or unlawful to reserve, charge, or take interest thereon unless the rate of interest exceeds” twenty-five percent); Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- JP Morgan Chase for Residential Funding Corp. v. NEW Millennial, LC, 6 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Akbar Nikooie v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 183 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Barton v. Metrojax Prop. Holdings, LLC, 207 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- NLG, LLC v. Hazan, 151 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)