Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Suarez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Suarez

732 So. 2d 394, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 1999 WL 157394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1999

DocketNo. 99-332

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 394 (Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Suarez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Suarez, 732 So. 2d 394, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 1999 WL 157394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In the obvious absence of a provision in the mortgage which covers the mortgagors-homeowners’ claim against the builder for construction defects which caused the loss of their home in Hurricane Andrew, it is clear that the trial court correctly declined to permit the appellant, the assignee of the mortgage, to assert an interest in the recovery effected in that case. See Clay v. Girdner, 103 Fla. 135, 138 So. 490 (1931); Orlando Hyatt Assocs. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 629 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Interdevco, Inc. v. Hollywood Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 523 So.2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); VAC Dev. Corp. v. Abelleira, 330 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The appellant’s arguments that the claim falls within the provision which secures “replacements” of the mortgaged property and that, even in the absence of an explicit mortgage provision, it has an “equitable” lien on the proceeds are completely without merit. In Re B. Schrewe, 108 B.R. 116, 118 (E.D. La. 1989)(“mortgages are strictissimi juris and are not created, extended or modified by analogy or a fine turn of language”); Clay, 103 Fla. at 135, 138 So. at 490; Interdevco, 523 So.2d at 773.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

In the obvious absence of a provision in the mortgage which covers the mortgagors-homeowners’ claim against the builder for construction defects which caused the loss of their home in Hurricane Andrew, it is clear that the trial court correctly declined to permit the appellant, the assignee of the mortgage, to assert an interest in the recovery effected in that case. See Clay v. Girdner, 103 Fla. 135, 138 So. 490 (1931); Orlando Hyatt Assocs. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 629 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Interdevco, Inc. v. Hollywood Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 523 So.2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); VAC Dev. Corp. v. Abelleira, 330 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The appellant’s arguments that the claim falls within the provision which secures “replacements” of the mortgaged property and that, even in the absence of an explicit mortgage provision, it has an “equitable” lien on the proceeds are completely without merit. In Re B. Schrewe, 108 B.R. 116, 118 (E.D. La. 1989)(“mortgages are strictissimi juris and are not created, extended or modified by analogy or a fine turn of language”); Clay, 103 Fla. at 135, 138 So. at 490; Interdevco, 523 So.2d at 773.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 394, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3412, 1999 WL 157394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-mortgage-corp-v-suarez-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack