J. E. MORTON AND WILLIAM E. MORTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMY FAROUK RIFAI AND MAUNIRA RIFAI, 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.
The Mortons purchased real estate from the Rifais, executing a promissory note secured by a second mortgage. After financial difficulties, the Mortons reconveyed the property to the Rifais, then the Rifais sold it to a third party and sued on the note. The court affirmed judgment for the Rifais, holding that reconveyance of the mortgaged property does not discharge the underlying promissory note.
Reconveyance of the property does not discharge the promissory note. Although a merger may occur with respect to the mortgage itself, the promissory note constitutes a separate and distinct agreement unaffected by the reconveyance. Additionally, no accord and satisfaction occurred because there was no meeting of the minds regarding cancellation of the debt.
[1] A creditor holding a promissory note secured by a mortgage may pursue an action on the note independently of the mortgage security.
[2] A reconveyance of mortgaged property to the mortgagee does not extinguish the mortgagor's personal liability on the promissory note, absent an agreement to that effect.
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“In Florida, a creditor holding a note secured by a mortgage may ignore his security and bring an action on the note.”
Establishes that the creditor's right to collect on the promissory note is independent of the mortgage security.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1974, the Rifais sold real estate to the Mortons, who paid cash and assumed an existing first mortgage, then executed a promissory note secured by …
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 Merger Of Estates cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
In 1974 appellees Rifai sold to appellants Morton a parcel of real estate. In addition to a cash payment, the purchasers assumed an existing mortgage in favor of a federal savings and loan association and executed a promissory note for the balance of the purchase price, secured by a second mortgage encumbering the property. Thereafter, experiencing financial difficulties, the Mor-tons reconveyed the property to the Rifáis but there was no agreement as to the intended affect of the reconveyance. The Rifáis thereafter conveyed the property to a third' party in return for an assumption of the obligation of the first mortgage in favor of the federal savings and loan association and sued the Mortons for the balance owed on their note. Judgment was entered for the Rifáis and this appeal followed.
Appellants urge that when the property was reconveyed to appellees a merger was effected. Appellees respond that since they are not seeking to foreclose the mortgage it is immaterial whether or not there was a merger, urging that a merger does not affect the indebtedness on account of the note. Appellees are correct. Normally, there is no implication from the taking of collateral security for the payment of a debt that the creditor must look to it only or primarily for the payment of the debt. (22 Fla.Jur., “Mortgages”, § 291) In Florida, a creditor holding a note secured by a mortgage may ignore his security and bring an action on the note. (Florida National Bank and Trust Co. v. Brown, Sup.Ct. Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 748) Thus, when the Mortons reconveyed the property to the Ri-fáis, there may have been a merger insofar as the second mortgage was concerned, but the promissory note, constituting a separate and distinct agreement, was unaffected by the reconveyance.
Nor do the facts of this case reveal an accord and satisfaction. The requisites of an accord and satisfaction are a new agreement which is intended by the parties to substitute for a former agreement. (State Road Department v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 1st 1970, 237 So. 2d 270, 274) The uncontradicted evidence in this case reveals that although appellants apparently were of the view that a voluntary reconveyance of the property would cancel the indebtedness it is clear that there was no agreement to that effect and no meeting of the minds. In fact, appellant J. E. Morton admitted that he merely assumed that if he reconveyed the property to appel-lees, the promissory note would be forgotten, and that appellees never made any commitment to accept the deed as full satisfaction of the debt.
Finally, appellants urge that appel-lees should not be permitted to recover what appellants term a “deficiency judg ment”, claiming that the property was resold by appellees without notice to appellants, citing Turk v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.2nd 1973, 281 So. 2d 534. Our examination of the record reveals that the lack of notice issue was raised for the first time on appeal and may not therefore be properly considered by us.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Turk v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co., 281 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Fla. Nat. Bank Tr. Co. v. Brown, 47 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1949)
- State Rd. Dep't v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 237 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)