BARNETT BANK OF CLEARWATER, N. A., A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NICHOLAS J. ROMPON, JUNE P. ROMPON, J. MAURICE LANGELIER AND JACQUES A. CORBEIL, 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 bank that financed a mobile home and perfected its security interest with the Department of Motor Vehicles sought to foreclose after the mobile home was affixed to land and became a fixture to real property. The court held that even when a mobile home becomes a fixture, it remains subject to motor vehicle titling and registration requirements under Florida law, and the bank's security interest perfected at the time of purchase remains valid without the need to reperfect under real property law.
A mobile home is classified as a motor vehicle under Florida law and must be registered and titled by the Department regardless of whether it has been affixed to land and become a fixture. The bank's security interest, properly perfected at the time of financing by notation on the certificate of title, remains valid and does not require reperfection under Chapter 679 real property law. Purchasers of real property on which a mobile home is located must search Department records to discover perfected security interests.
[1] A security interest in a mobile home, which is classified as a motor vehicle under Florida law, is perfected by notation on the certificate of title issued by the Departm…
[2] A security interest perfected on a mobile home as a motor vehicle remains valid even if the mobile home is subsequently affixed to real property.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If a mobile home must be registered and titled as a motor vehicle under Florida law, then the provisions of Chapter 679 do not even apply.”
Establishes the critical distinction that motor vehicle law preempts real property fixture law for mobile homes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Barnett Bank financed Rompon's purchase of a mobile home in 1973 and perfected its security interest by notation on the title issued by the …
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 Foreclosure Of Security Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
This is the third trip to this court by the mobile home involved herein — even though it has been without wheels since shortly after its purchase by appellee Rompon in 1973.
Appellant financed the original purchase of the mobile home. It perfected its security interest by notation on the title issued for the mobile home by the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (Department).
At some later date appellee Rompon moved the mobile home upon a plot of land in Hillsborough County, removed the wheels and towing tongue, hooked up underground utilities, added a side porch and otherwise firmly affixed the mobile home to the real estate. In all years subsequent to the year of purchase the mobile home was taxed as “real property”.
In 1975 appellees Langelier and Corbeil purchased at a sheriff’s sale the land on which the mobile home was situated. They had searched the county records for evidence of encumbrances against the real property, but they had not searched the records of the Department. They had no actual notice of appellant’s lien and the mobile home bore no tags or other evidence that it was registered with the Department. The first litigation — and first appearance of the subject mobile home before this court— involved the right of possession of the mobile home as between appellee Rompon and appellees Langelier and Corbeil. In that case the trial court found — and this court affirmed — that under the facts the mobile home had become a fixture to real property and, as such, went to appellees Langelier and Corbeil as purchasers of the real property. Our opinion in that case expressly included the following caveat:
The decision reached in this case is dispos-itive of the single issue presented to us, that is whether the mobile homes are fixtures. We have not considered or determined either appellants’ personal liability on the mortgages or the priority of claims made on the mobile homes by the chattel mortgagees.
Rompon Properties, Inc. v. Langelier, 341 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
Upon the return of the mobile home to Hillsborough County, appellant brought this action against all of the appellees to foreclose its lien. The trial court found for the appellees on the grounds that the appellant was estopped by the previous judgment from asserting that the mobile home was not a fixture and, therefore, had no lien superior to the appellees since it had not perfected its lien against the mobile home in the manner required for fixtures to real property. This court reversed that ruling of the trial court and sent the little mobile [*MLXIII] home back to the trial court on the ground that appellant had not been a party to and thus was not bound by the previous judgment or findings of the trial court. Barnett Bank of Clearwater v. Rompon, et al., 359 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).
After retrial, the court entered final judgment in favor of the appellees. The court below again found, under the facts, that the mobile home was a fixture to the real property and thus appellant’s security interest in it should have been perfected pursuant to Section 679.9 — 401(l)(b), Florida Statutes.
It may well be that the mobile home was so affixed to the land as to become a fixture, but that is not the determinative factor here. If a mobile home must be registered and titled as a motor vehicle under Florida law, then the provisions of Chapter 679 do not even apply. § 679.9-302(3)(b).
There can be no doubt that a mobile home is classified as a motor vehicle under Florida law and must be registered with and titled by the Department. §§ 320.-01(l)(a); 320.01(6); 320.015; 320.02; 320.-06(l)(d), Fla.Stat. At the time appellant financed Rompon’s purchase of the mobile home it was registered and titled by the Department. Appellant could only perfect its lien on it by filing notice thereof with the Department and having it noted on the certificate of title. § 319.27(2). Even when a mobile home is permanently affixed to land and taxed as real property, it still must have an RP license plate issued by the Department and attached to the rear of the mobile home in a conspicuous place. § 320.-0815.
At the time of financing the Rompon purchase of the mobile home, the appellant perfected its security interest according to law. There is no requirement that appellant reperfect its security interest pursuant to Chapter 679 in the event the mobile home subsequently becomes a fixture to real property. Under the provisions of Chapters 319 and 320, Florida Statutes, appellees’ interest in the mobile home is subject to appellant’s perfected security interest. A check of the records of the Department is required even though a mobile home has actually become a fixture to real property.
The judgment in favor of appellees is reversed with instructions to the court to permit appellant to proceed with the foreclosure of its duly established security interest in the mobile home.
DANAHY, J., concurs.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Zimerman, 611 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…f title with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and that the party assumes the existing defects and liens on the title. Id.; see Dicks v. Colonial Finance Corp., 85 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1956); Barnett Bank of Clearwater, N.A. v. Rompon, 377 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA1979); Castner v. Ziemer, 125 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA1960); see also § 319.27(2), Fla.Stat. (1989) (notice of lien filed with Department of Highway Safety and notation of lien on certificate of title shall be effective as constructive no…
-
Smith v. City OF Miami Beach, 440 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…a motor vehicle titled in this state is perfected only when such lien is noted upon the face of the certificate of title or on a duplicate or corrected copy thereof. § 319.-27(1), Fla.Stat. (1981); Barnett Bank of [*612] Clearwater, N.A. v. Rompon, 377 So. 2d 981, 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Affirmed. . Section 932.703(3), Florida Statutes (1981) provides in part: No bona fide lienholder’s interest shall be forfeited under the provisions of ss. 932.701-932.704 if such lienholder establishes that he neithe…
-
Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Sohn, 566 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…upon which a mobile home is located should not serve to extinguish a valid, outstanding security interest in such mobile home, regardless of whether it is classified as real or personal property. Appellant cites Barnett Bank of Clearwater v. Rompon, 377 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), for the proposition that the only way a holder of a security interest in a [*843] mobile home can perfect its lien is by registering it with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Appellant then correctly points out…
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
- Rompon Props., Inc. v. Langelier, 341 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Barnett Bank OF Clearwater v. Nickolas J. Rompon, 359 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)