601 WEST 26 CORP., A/K/A 601 WEST 26 CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND TRUNK CORP., A/K/A TRUNK CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
EQUITY CAPITAL COMPANY, A MINNESOTA 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.
Notices of sale for mortgage foreclosure must accurately describe all property to be sold, and parcels encumbered by a junior mortgage cannot be excluded from its foreclosure sale if they were already sold under a senior mortgage.
Plaintiff foreclosed two mortgages. The first foreclosure sale was set aside. In the second foreclosure, parcels already sold under the first 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 Deficiency Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
These are consolidated appeals of a final decree and orders entered in a mortgage foreclosure suit.
The plaintiff filed a complaint to foreclose two mortgages. The first mortgage had been executed in July, 1963, the second in November, 1963. The July mortgage encumbered certain parcels while the November mortgage encumbered additional parcels as well as some of the parcels encumbered by the July mortgage.
In the foreclosure decree of the July mortgage the chancellor held that, “This final decree does not eliminate any lien which the plaintiff, (mortgagee) Equity Capital Company has on any of the subject property * * * by virtue of its * * * *740[November] mortgage * * At the foreclosure sale of the July mortgaged property, plaintiff-mortgagee was the successful bidder; but that sale was set aside. See 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capital Company, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 626.
Meanwhile, before this court’s disposition of the appeal in that case, the November mortgage was foreclosed, and the chancellor eliminated from the ensuing sale those parcels included in the November mortgage which had been sold at the sale pursuant to the foreclosure of the July mortgage.
The remaining lands encumbered by the November mortgage were sold but failed to bring sufficient monies to satisfy the mortgage debt. A deficiency judgment was then entered against the defendant for One Hundred Thousand Dollars.
The determinative points in the appeal are: (1) whether the notices of sale comply with the statutory requirements, (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from the foreclosure sale three parcels of property which were specifically encumbered by the mortgage being foreclosed, and (3) whether the trial court erred in entering a deficiency decree for the plaintiff.
The property sold pursuant to foreclosure of the November mortgage involved parcels located in both Dade and Broward counties. Section 702.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. requires that a notice of sale be published in each county wherein any of the lands to be sold lie. The plaintiff did publish notices in both counties but, neither of the notices included a description of all the property to be sold. The Dade County notice listed only the property in Dade County and the Bow-ard County notice mentioned only the property in Broward County. Upon reading either notice one would be led to believe that the property listed is the only property to be sold and that by bidding on the advertised parcel, he could acquire title thereto. Such however is not the case. The bidder was required to bid on both parcels of land if he wished to buy either. Section 702.02(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides, inter alia:
“Such notice shall be concise and shall contain: (a) a description of the property to be sold * *
Neither of the public notices contained an accurate description of the property to be sold and, as such, failed to adequately inform the public of what was to transpire.
The mortgage foreclosure procedures are of a statutory origin and must be strictly construed. As this court stated in 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capital Company, supra:
“One whose rights in property are divested by foreclosure is entitled to have the proceedings conducted according to due process of law. This is not accomplished when the provisions for notice and advertisement for sale as prescribed by statute are substantially departed from.”
In light of our views as above expressed, the notices of sale in this case fail to comply with the law, therefore, a new sale is ordered.
Turning to the question of the excluded parcels, it would, in our view, be grossly inequitable to permit a mortgagee to have excluded from a sale pursuant to foreclosure of a junior mortgage, parcels of land on which he affirmatively retained that junior lien in favor of himself upon foreclosure of his senior lien. To permit such a procedure would adversely affect the rights of the mortgagor at both foreclosure sales.
It is therefore ordered that the decree of foreclosure be modified in accordance with the views herein expressed, and that when so modified it stand affirmed; the order affirming the sale is reversed, and a resale is ordered to be conducted in accordance with our holding; the deficiency decree and judgment is reversed with leave for plaintiffs to reapply therefor, if after *741resale it appears that there is a basis for such relief.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e paid by the successful bidder was inadequate. As to that part of the general rule relating to fraud or mistake connected with the sale, see Watson v. Vafides, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 358; 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capitol Company, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 739. Neither fraud nor mistake connected with the sale (such as improper description of the property, 601 West 26 Corp. v. Equity Capitol Company, supra) has been made to show here. As to the second part of the general rule set forth above, i. e., that…
-
601 W. 26 Corp. v. Equity Cap. Co., 235 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. 601 West 26 Corp., a defendant below, appeals from a deficiency judgment entered [*772] against it in a mortgage foreclosure suit. Earlier appeals in the cause, which concerned other matters, are reported in 174 So. 2d 626; 177 So. 2d 739; 178 So. 2d 894; and 198 So. 2d 55. In response to the plaintiff’s motion for deficiency judgment the defendants filed an answer asserting certain equitable defenses relied upon, and averring that the entry of a deficiency judgment would be untimel…
Authorities Cited
- 601 W. 26 Corp. v. Equity Cap. Co., 174 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)