OSCAR OSTEEN, ET UX.
v.
EMMA MATHEWS, ETC., ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed an order striking parts of an answer in a mortgage foreclosure suit. The court held that a tenant in possession of mortgaged premises can lawfully purchase the mortgage without holding it for the benefit of the owner.
Yes, a tenant in possession of mortgaged premises can lawfully purchase the mortgage. There is no legal principle preventing a tenant from purchasing a lien on the leased premises.
“We find nothing in the alleged agreement to prevent plaintiff from purchasing the mortgage or to restrict his ownership in same when purchased.”
Establishes that the prior agreement did not prohibit the tenant from buying the mortgage.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a tenant occupying mortgaged premises under an agreement to maintain them, purchased the mortgage. The defendant argued that the plaint…
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.
This case comes here on petition for certiorari under Rule 24 to review an order striking parts of an answer.
The suit is to foreclose a mortgage. Defendant answered in effect that the suit should not be maintained for that. Plaintiff entered the mortgage premises under an agreement with defendant as owner of the fee whereby plaintiff was to occupy same and in return was to maintain same in a “fair condition until such time as defendant would determine otherwise;” that plaintiff entered under such agreement and subsequently purchased the mortgage here in suit. The question is, does plaintiff hold the mortgage for the use and benefit of defendant under the aforesaid agreement?
We find nothing in the alleged agreement to prevent plaintiff from purchasing the mortgage or to restrict his ownership in same when purchased. We know of no principle of law to prevent a tenant in possession from purchasing a lien on the leased premises.
It is ordered that the writ issue and the said order is quashed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.