TAMPA PROPERTIES, INC., A LOUISIANA CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GREAT AMERICAN MORTGAGE INVESTORS, A MASSACHUSETTS BUSINESS TRUST, 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.
A Massachusetts business trust qualified to do business in Florida sought to foreclose a mortgage without joining its individual trustees as parties. The court held that a business trust registered under Florida law has sufficient legal capacity to foreclose a mortgage on its own without requiring its trustees to be named as plaintiffs.
A Massachusetts business trust that has fully complied with Florida Statute Chapter 609 has sufficient legal capacity to foreclose a mortgage as an entity in its own name, without requiring its individual trustees to be joined as parties plaintiff.
[1] A business trust qualified to do business in Florida under Fla.Stat. …
[2] A business trust that has complied with Florida statutes empowering it to conduct business is considered an entity capable of bringing suit.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a Massachusetts business trust qualified to do business in Florida under Fla.Stat. Ch. 609, has capacity to foreclose a mortgage without its trustees becoming plaintiffs in the suit”
The central legal question presented and answered by the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreat American Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust qualified under Florida Statute Chapter 609, filed a foreclosure action against Tamp…
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 Uniform Partnership Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
The question presented here is whether a Massachusetts business trust qualified to do business in Florida under Fla.Stat. Ch. 609, has capacity to foreclose a mortgage without its trustees becoming plaintiffs in the suit. The trial court held it does. We affirm.
Plaintiff/appellee, identifying itself in its complaint as “Great American Mortgage Investors, a Massachusetts business trust qualified to do business under Ch. 609,” sought to foreclose a mortgage against the defendant/appellant Tampa Properties, Inc. Defendant moved to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to join its trustees as indispensable parties. The trial judge denied the motion and this interlocutory appeal by defendant ensued.
Defendant argues that the issue here is controlled by Willey v. Hoggson, 1925, 90 Fla. 343, 106 So. 408, where the court held that several persons who owned properties together were to be treated as an association or partnership, and required that an action on their behalf be brought in the name of all owners. We think Willey, supra, is clearly distinguishable. In WiUey there was no showing that the plaintiffs, who styled themselves as a common law trust, had complied with Ch. 9125, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, which then regulated such trusts. Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff business trust has fully complied with Ch. 609, Fla.Stat., empowering it to conduct its business.
The trend seems unmistakable from the recent Florida decisions. In Boyd v. Boulevard National Bank, Fla.App.3d 1975, 306 So. 2d 551, the Third District Court of Appeal held such a trust was an entity for purpose of being sued, and in Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, Fla.App.4th 1975, 316 So. 2d 596, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that all of the trustees of a Massachusetts business trust were not indispensable parties plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure.
Recently, in Pinellas County v. Lake Padgett Pines, Fla.App., 333 So. 2d 472, opinion filed June 4, 1976, this court held that under the Uniform Partnership Act, Ch. 72-108, Fla.Stat. § 620.56, et seq., a partnership, with capacity to hold and convey title to real estate, was the real party in interest and was an entity authorized to sue to protect its real property holdings.
Logic dictates that a common law trust authorized to transact business in Florida is the real party in interest and should be allowed to bring suit to protect its interest in this instance. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irwindale Co., N.V. v. Three Islands Olympus, 474 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ership holding title to real property in its firm name may initiate litigation in its firm name to protect its interest in that property. See also Malibu Partners, Ltd. v. Schooley, supra; Tampa Properties, Inc. v. Great American Mortgage Investors, 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Whether this case is governed by the general rule or the exception is a legitimate issue for resolution by the trial court. To suggest that the exception’s ambit is so well defined and clearly understood as to render the defenda…
-
Bastida v. Batchelor, 418 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…nt interest in the contract to maintain his position as the proper party plaintiff. “Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.210. See also Tampa Properties, Inc. v. Great American Mortgage Investors, 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Bastida is the individual who stood to lose or gain and, thus, is the real party in interest. H. Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure, § 4-3 (1981). As we noted in Stanley Fine Furniture, Inc. v. North River Insurance Company,…
-
Corcoran v. Brody, 347 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…ore, no one can sue on behalf of a name.” The District Court affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, citing Boyd and Gross. The final case in this series is Tampa Properties Inc. v. Great American Mortgage Investers, a Massachusetts business trust, 333 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). That suit was brought by the Trust itself without the trustees’ being named party plaintiffs. The opinion reflects that the trust had been qualified in Florida pursuant to Chapter 609, Florida Statutes, which, according to the co…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp., 90 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1925)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Lake Padgett Pines, 333 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Boyd v. Boulevard Nat'l Bank, 306 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Your Constr. Ctr., Inc. v. Gross, 316 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)