RAYMOND E. SHORES AND MARCENE G. SHORES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST FLORIDA RESOURCE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's findings regarding a defaulted mortgage but reversed and remanded because the corporation failed to adequately prove the note and mortgage were not assigned, requiring proper procedures under the governing statute to reestablish the instruments.
A mortgagee seeking to reestablish a lost note and mortgage must follow statutory procedures and provide adequate evidence that the instruments have not been assigned to other parties.
[1] A mortgagee seeking reestablishment of a lost note and mortgage must provide adequate evidence that the instruments have not been assigned to other parties and must follo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“All this record shows is the bare affirmation of two corporate officers that this one was not assigned.”
The court found the evidence inadequate to prove the note and mortgage had not been assigned to other parties.
Appellants acquired property subject to a mortgage, agreed to assume it, made some payments, and the mortgage fell into default. The corporation claim…
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 Statutory Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Properly characterized, this is an action for reestablishment of a lost note and mortgage. The evidence is clear that the mortgage was executed, that the appellants acquired the property subject to it and agreed to assume it. They made some payments, but it is now in default to the extent determined by the trial court. Thus the findings, as far as they go, are correct and are affirmed. However, the evidence that the note and mortgage have not been assigned is inadequate, and the procedures outlined by the governing statute1 have not been followed. Appellants are entitled to assurance that they will not later be sued by a holder of these instruments. The corporation had admittedly transferred some mortgages to a bank and some to stockholders whose interest was being acquired. All this record shows is the bare affirmation of two corporate officers that this one was not assigned. The president testified that it was necessary to subpoena the corporation’s records from its former bookkeeper, but was forbidden by his counsel to explain why this was necessary. If there are parties having any claim to these instruments they should be brought into the action and the matter determined. The *697instruments should then be reestablished, recorded and an appropriate judgment entered.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seidler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 179 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…hat note under sections 673.3011 and 673.3091. See Correa v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 118 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (testimony of employee of mortgage servicer insufficient to prove circumstances of loss of note); Shores v, First Florida Resource Corp., 267 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (bare affirmation of corporate officers insufficient to establish transfer of instruments or lack thereof), Because Wells Fargo failed to prove its claim , to reestablish a lost note and failed to prove its standing, based on the…
-
Segall v. Wachovia Bank, 192 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ce. Testimony that a merger had occurred, without more, is insufficient to prove the extent of the consolidation, or that the transfer of the asset in question was included - as part of the purported transaction. See Shores v. First Fla. Res. Corp., 267 So. 2d 696, 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (holding that when a corporation admitted to transferring “some mortgages” to various entities, corporate officers’ “bare affirmation” that the subject note was not assigned along with the other mortgages,-without more, faile…