R. M. MACARTHUR, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS MERWITZER AND REBECCA MERWITZER, HIS 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.
A mortgage lender appealed the denial of a motion to dismiss in a foreclosure action, arguing the mortgage was unenforceable because the note contained a non-recourse clause limiting the lender to the mortgage security. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a purchase-money mortgage properly secures the buyer's obligation to pay the deferred purchase price regardless of non-recourse language in the note.
The mortgage is enforceable. A purchase-money mortgage that clearly identifies itself as securing the unpaid balance of the purchase price constitutes a valid security interest, and the non-recourse language in the note does not prevent foreclosure of the mortgage.
“This is a Purchase Money Mortgage, given to evidence and secure the unpaid and deferred balance of the purchase price of the above described property.”
Language from the mortgage document itself showing the clear intent to secure the deferred purchase price, establishing a valid underlying obligation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton Weiss, as trustee, purchased real estate in June 1958, with an unpaid balance of $1,932,000 secured by a promissory note and mortgage. The mort…
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 Purchase Money Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
On this interlocutory appeal by a defendant below, from an order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint in a mortgage foreclosure suit, the question presented is whether the complaint with its exhibits set forth facts upon which relief could be granted.
The complaint revealed that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed was given to secure the unpaid portion ($1,932,000) of the purchase price of real estate. It was alleged that certain lands were sold to Milton Weiss, as trustee, in June of 1958, and that the purchaser executed a note for the unpaid balance, and joined by his wife, executed a mortgage to secure payment of the same; that in accordance with the terms of the purchase money mortgage the plaintiff had executed a partial release thereof on a portion of the property encumbered. Default thereunder was alleged, and foreclosure of the mortgage on the unreleased property was sought.
Appellant contends the mortgage was unenforceable. In support thereof appellant argues that the fact that the promissory note and mortgage contained a provision to the effect that the maker of the note should not be personally liable and that the mortgagee would be limited to the security afforded by the mortgage, precludes foreclosure. The attorneys for the parties thoroughly explored and briefed the law relating to the contention just referred to, but in our opinion the matter is not one which can be determined on the basis of the authorities submitted dealing with the question of ineffectiveness of a mortgage unsupported by an obligation. This is so because upon viewing the entire transaction as disclosed by the complaint, it is apparent that the mortgage was made to secure the purchaser’s obligation. Thus, in the mortgage, a copy of which is an exhibit to the complaint, following a description of the real estate involved it is stated: “This is a Purchase Money Mortgage, given to evidence and secure the unpaid and deferred *165balance of the purchase price of the above described property.” That provision of the mortgage, coupled with the showing in the complaint that the mortgagor Milton Weiss, as trustee, had purchased the property and made the mortgage in question to secure the unpaid balance of its price, sufficiently disclosed an obligation for which the mortgage must be regarded as security. Additionally, the mortgagors contracted therein to pay the taxes, and the complaint for foreclosure was made to depend in part upon alleged non-payment thereof.
For the reasons stated the chancellor was eminently correct in denying motion to dismiss, and the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SAC Constr. Co., Inc. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 449 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Since it is apparent from the face of the stipulation that the parties intended that foreclosure would occur, it is immaterial that the mortgagee has released its right to a deficiency judgment. See MacArthur v. Merwitzer, 180 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Based on the foregoing, we affirm. . Beach Ocean Walk, Inc. had become the fee simple owner of the property by virtue of a quit-claim deed from Muller.…
-
MacARTHUR v. Isadore H. Abrams and Florence M. Abrams, 180 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of MacArthur v. Merwitzer, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 164, decided this date.…