EARL L. VANCE AND ANITA L. VANCE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SEBIE FIELDS AND ANNIE MAE CLARK FIELDS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Plaintiffs Vance sought to foreclose on a mortgage originally given to secure a note held by Pioneer Finance Corporation. The court affirmed summary judgment for Pioneer Finance, holding that the mortgage secures only the note held by Pioneer Finance, and plaintiffs' purported assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note created no enforceable rights.
The court held that the mortgage was given solely to secure the July 6 note, and that an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the underlying debt creates no enforceable rights in the assignee. Therefore, Pioneer Finance Corporation's lien has first priority and plaintiffs have no standing to foreclose.
“The mortgage is a mere incident of and ancillary to such note.”
Establishes that a mortgage is dependent upon and inseparable from the underlying promissory note it secures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFields executed two promissory notes of identical amount and terms dated July 6 and July 7, 1961, with a mortgage dated July 6 to secure the first not…
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 Assignment Of Note cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by plaintiffs, Earl L. Vance and Anita L. Vance, from a summary final decree entered against them and in favor of defendant, Pioneer Finance Corporation, in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.
Plaintiffs sought to foreclose a real estate ' mortgage executed by defendants, Sebie Fields and Annie Mae Clark Fields to Welch and Gibson, trading as Home Additions Company. The mortgage is of date July 6, 1961, duly recorded July 10, 1961, and recites that it secures the payment of a note of even date executed by Fields to Welch and Gibson in the sum of $5,809.16. The note represents the total sum due by Fields to Welch and Gibson for certain improvements on Fields’ real property in *614Gadsden County, Florida. Through some method not known to the parties now before the Court, Welch and Gibson obtained the signatures of Sebie and Annie Mae Clark Fields to a second note, dated July 7, 1961, for the same amount and terms of payment as the note of July 6, 1961.
The stipulation of the parties reveals that on July 14, 1961, Welch and Gibson sold and delivered to plaintiffs the Fields note of July 7, and on said date purported to assign to plaintiffs the Fields realty mortgage. Neither the original nor a copy of the mortgage was delivered to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs recorded their assignment on July 14, 1961. Thereafter, on July 17, 1961, Welch and Gibson sold and delivered to defendant, Pioneer Finance Corporation the Fields note of July 6, 1961, and also assigned and delivered to said defendant the Fields realty mortgage of said date. Pioneer Finance Corporation recorded said assignment on July 18, 1961. The Fields have paid all monthly installments when due to Pioneer Finance Corporation.
Plaintiffs instituted suit to foreclose the subject mortgage for failure of Fields to make any payment alleged to be due on the note of July 7. The Chancellor ruled, on motion for summary decree, that: (1) the subject mortgage was given only to secure payment of the Fields note of July 6, assigned to and owned by the defendant, Pioneer Finance Corporation; (2) the lien of first priority created by the mortgage dated July 6 is in favor of said defendant, and (3) the equities are in favor of said defendant and against the plaintiffs. The Chancellor dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to defendant, Pioneer Finance Corporation. The decree did not adjudicate the rights, if any, of plaintiffs against defendants, Sebie and Annie Mae Clark Fields.
The mortgage was given to secure payment of the note of July 6, 1961, and none other. Under the facts in this case, no assignment of the note of July 6 to plaintiffs was intended or accomplished. The mortgage is a mere incident of and ancillary to such note. Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 So. 30 (1912). An assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee. 6 Am.Jur.2nd, Assignments, Sec. 26, page 210; 22 Fla.Jur. Mortgages, Sec. 540, page 621, and the cases cited therein.
The recording by Vance of the ineffective assignment did not aid their cause. Recordation of an invalid instrument affords no protection to claimants thereunder. Wright v. Blocker, 144 Fla. 428, 198 So. 88 (1940); Poladian v. Johnson, 85 So.2d 140 (Fla.1955).
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, 137 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…. The mortgage follows assignment of the note. Taylor v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 74 So. 3d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). But “[a]n assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee.” Vance v. Fields, 172 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because an issue of material fact existed as to when the bank took possession of the note. We And no merit in the other issues raised by the borrower, which include that i…
-
Geweye v. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R, 189 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ortgage, reflecting only the transfer of the mortgage and not the note, provided it with standing; nothing in the assignment of mortgage conferred standing on Ventures to enforce the note. See Russell, 163 So. 3d at 641-42; see also Vance v. Fields, 172 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (“An assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee.”). And because no assignment of note was introduced, we are compelled to reverse. Because Ventures failed to present eviden…
-
Corrigan v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 189 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…is founded upon a commercial histrument that is, itself, freely transferable. Cf. Marianna, 56 So. at 672 (explaining that standing to recover from injury to land belongs to the owner of that land at- the time the- injury occurred); Vance v. Fields, 172 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (recognizing that “[t]he mortgage is a mere incident of and ancillary to” the promissory note that it secures (citing Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 So. 30 (1912))). But migrate the rule did. Cf. Ham, 164 So. 3d at 718. S…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clara Lavinia Wright (also Known as Vinnie Wright) v. Hattie Dean Blocker, 144 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1940)
- Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1912)
- Armen Poladian & A. P. Constr. Co. v. Johnson, 85 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1955)