CARL WHITE AND ELEVATOR SALES & SERVICE, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY MORTGAGEE CORP. AND PAULINE MURAVCHICK, 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.
This case involves a mortgage foreclosure suit where the defendant mortgagor sought releases of land under the mortgage agreement, but the trial court dismissed their counterclaim.
The trial court had sufficient grounds to find a waiver of the mortgagor's right to land releases, as the mortgagor's conduct and assurances to the mortgagee made insistence upon the release inequitable.
The defendant executed a note and mortgage in default. The defendant sought releases of 100 acres based on a mortgage provision, but only after the fo…
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 Retain Title Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The principal issue on this appeal is the rights between a conditional vendor of a chattel and a mortgagee of the premises in which the chattel is incorporated.
The chattel in question is an elevator system. It as been held in some cases that elevators become integral parts of buildings and, therefore, are considered fixtures and lose their character as a chattel. Medical Tower Corporation v. Otis Elevator Co., 3rd Cir. 1939, 104 F.2d 133; Land Title Bank & Trust Co. v. Stout, 339 Pa. 302, 14 A.2d 282. It has also been held that notwithstanding its incorporation into a building, an elevator or system may retain its character as a chattel. Woodliff v. Citizens Building & Realty Co., 240 Mich. 413, 215 N.W. 343, modified on other grounds, 245 Mich. 292, 222 N.W. 730; Harvard Financial Corporation v. Greenblatt Const. Co., 261 N.Y. 169, 184 N.E. 748. In other words, each case turns on its particular facts.
It is apparent from^the only evidence in this cause that the elevator, machinery, etc., installed in the premises involved were subject to being removed without damage to the premises, and therefore retained its character as a chattel. Commercial Finance Co. v. Brooksville Hotel Co., 98 Fla. 410, 123 So. 814, 64 A.L.R. 1219; Meena v. Drousiotis, 146 Fla. 168, 200 So. 362; Maas Brothers, Inc. v. Guaranty Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 528. The record on appeal in the instant case discloses that the appellants [as conditional vendors] sold an elevator system to a conditional vendee, a lessee who subsequently improved the leased premises by erecting a ten story apartment building and incorporated the elevators therein. The appel-lee, County Mortgagee Corp., loaned money to construct the project and, in return *256therefor, received a note secured by a mortgage on the premises involved. The note and mortgage were executed subsequent to the conditional sales contract. The mortgage was recorded; the conditional sales contract was never recorded. Within two years of the execution of the conditional sales contract, the mortgage note became in default and foreclosure proceedings were commenced. The final decree of foreclosure found the mortgage lien to be superior to the appellants’ rights under the retain title contract. It made no finding as to whether or not the elevators were in fact fixtures. We reverse.
It is apparent from the record that there was substantial competent evidence to show that the elevators in the instant cause were, in fact, chattels. There was no evidence to the contrary. It then became apparent that the appellants’ rights under the retain title contract were protected by the provisions of. § 726.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and this cause should have been determined by the reasoning applied by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Wheat v. Otis Elevator Co., 5th Cir. 1927, 23 F.2d 152, as approved by the Supreme Court of Florida in Standard Motors Finance Co., Inc. v. Central Farmers’ Trust Co., 117 Fla. 217, 157 So. 520, and this court’s opinion in Rood v. Miami Air Conditioning Co., Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 216. This is not a case of balancing the equities between two innocent parties. The appellants’ conditional sales contract was first in point of time. The subject matter of the contract remained a chattel. Their rights were preserved for two years against innocent purchasers or mortgagees for value, pursuant to § 726.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and the trial judge erred in not recognizing these rights in the foreclosure proceedings.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dependable Air Conditioning & Appliances, Inc. v. Off. of Treas. & Ins. Comm'r, 400 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…n item can be removed without material or substantial injury to the freehold. Thus, there is a plethora of cases which hold for one reason or another that chattels attached to realty are not fixtures. For example, in White v. County Mortgagee Corp., 211 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968), the court held an elevator installed in a building retained its status as a chattel because it could be removed without damage to the premises. In GECC Leasing Corp. v. Berk [*120] shire Life Insurance Co., 226 So. 2d 231 (Fla.…
-
Suburbia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Irving Krassner v. Bel-Air Conditioning Co., Inc., 385 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…., concur. . Section 679.301 et seq., Florida Statutes (1979). . American Indus. Leasing Co. v. Searles, 510 F. 2d 996 (5th Cir. 1975), provides a general history of the statute with examples of its application. . White v. County Mortgagee Corp., 211 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1968). We are informed by appellants that . examination of the Eleventh Circuit docket reveals that the case [White] was originally filed in November, 1966, prior to the effective date of the Code . Chapter 65-254, Florida Laws (1965)…
-
Dailey v. Am. Steel Fence Co., Inc., 31 Fla. Supp. 200 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…ge of such agreement? Counsel for the defense argues that such an agreement does bind those with no knowledge of it, and cites as authority Rood v. Miami Air Conditioning Company, 193 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967) and White v. County Mortgage Corporation, 211 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1968). These cases would seem to support the defendant’s argument. However, as pointed out in the plaintiffs’ reply brief, these cases did not deal with bona fide purchasers, but with mortgagees buying at judicial sales. As pointed out by the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Fin. Co. v. Brooksville Hotel Co., 98 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1929)
- Standard Motors Fin. Co., Inc. v. Cent. Farmers Tr. Co., 117 Fla. 217 (Fla. 1934)
- Meena v. Drousiotis, 146 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1941)
- Wheat v. Otis Elevator Co., 23 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1927)
- Med. Tower Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 104 F.2d 133 (3d Cir. 1939)
- Engleman v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach, 193 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Rood v. Miami AIR Conditioning Co., 193 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Maas Bros., Inc. v. Guar. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 157 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)