MAJOR MARKETING CORPORATION, PETITIONER,

v.

WILLIAM HAYNES, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. AIR Flow Indus., Inc., 432 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …action.” . The UCC does not govern the legal consequences of the assignment of a real estate mortgage. Sec. 672.102, Fla.Stat. (1981) (Article 2 inapplicable); Sec. 673.104, Fla.Stat. (1981) (Article 3 inapplicable); Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (Article 9 inapplicable). . See Florida Coast Bank of Broward County v. Monarch Dodge, Inc., 430 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). . We are unaware of any principle under which such a claim, which amounts to one of contributory n…
• HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Perez, 165 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
  …ving to record the assignment of the security interest and incur the costs of recording.” Fla. S. Justice Approp. Comm., S.B. 370 (2005) Staff Analysis 4 (Apr. 4, 2005). The source of the banks’ uneasiness derived from Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So. 2d 171, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), which held that “the assignment of a real estate mortgage securing a promissory note as collateral for a bank loan is not a secured transaction under Article 9” of the UCC. Some in the mortgage-servicing industry interprete…
• Se. First Nat'l Bank OF Maitland v. LeGRACE Co., Inc., 363 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
  …e agreement of the parties, the exclusionary provision of the Code, Florida Statute § 679.9-104, does not apply and the applicability, if any, of the UCC to real estate foreclosure suits generally is not at issue. See, Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So. 2d 171 (1st DCA 1978).…