First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Jarvis

35 Fla. Supp. 102
CourtCircuit Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Lake County
DecidedJanuary 13, 1971
DocketNo. 3140
StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 102 (First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Jarvis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 5th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Lake County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Jarvis, 35 Fla. Supp. 102 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1971).

Opinion

W. TROY HALL, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Final judgment of foreclosure: This case was commenced by a complaint to foreclose a certain mortgage filed by First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake County through its counsel, [103]*103Charles B. P. Sellar; on motion of the plaintiff, Arthur E. Roberts was appointed administrator ad litem to represent the estate of R. E. Thomas, deceased, and in due course such administrator ad litem filed his answer to plaintiff’s complaint admitting the existence of the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by the plaintiff, but denying that it was a first mortgage and affirmatively declaring that a certain mortgage given by the defendants Jarvis et ux to R. E. Thomas, now deceased, was in fact a first mortgage and superior to plaintiff’s mortgage, and praying for the foreclosure of such Thomas mortgage; defendants, Tom B. Jarvis and Thelma Jarvis, his wife, suffered a default judgment to be entered against them for their failure to file an appearance within the time provided after personal service; the matter came on for final hearing and plaintiff presented the testimony of Mr. Ernest Miller, an officer of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake County, and thereupon rested; the administrator ad litem then moved for a directed verdict and the court took such motion under advisement and in due course denied such motion; upon resumption of the final hearing the administrator ad litem presented the testimony of Mr. Tom Jarvis and rested; thereupon this matter was argued by respective counsel and then taken under advisement until a full transcript could be prepared of the record; and the court now being fully advised in the matter, finds —

1. That a certain mortgage was given by Tom B. Jarvis and Thelma Jarvis, his wife, to plaintiff and recorded on May 29, 1958, in OR book 50, page 144, public records of Lake County.

2. That a certain mortgage was given by Tom B. Jarvis and Thelma Jarvis, his wife, to R. E. Thomas and such mortgage was recorded on May 11, 1960, in OR book 124, page 7, public records of Lake County; that such Thomas mortgage purported to be a lien upon the same property described in the plaintiff’s mortgage in paragraph 1 hereinabove.

3. That Tom B. Jarvis and Thelma Jarvis, his wife, gave a mortgage to plaintiff recorded on August 2, 1963, in OR book 241, page 963, public records of Lake County; that such mortgage purported to be a lien upon the same real property described in the instruments set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

4. That by an instrument recorded on August 2, 1963, in OR book 241, page 966, public records of Lake County, plaintiff satisfied of record that mortgage described in paragraph 1 hereinabove.

5. That the public records of Lake County indicate that the Thomas mortgage described in paragraph 2 hereinabove is a first [104]*104lien upon the property described therein, and that the mortgage of plaintiff described in paragraph 3 above is second and inferior to the said mortgage of the defendant, estate of R. E. Thomas, deceased, described in paragraph 2 above.

6. That, by virtue of the testimony of defendant, Tom B. Jarvis, the sum of $3,300 in principal, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from May 5, 1960, until the present time is due defendant, estate of R. E. Thomas, deceased.

7. That, by virtue of the testimony of Ernest Miller, an officer of plaintiff, the sum of $13,661.12, together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from June 13, 1969, is due on the plaintiff’s mortgage.

8. That the property which is the subject of all mortgages described hereinabove, to wit —

Lot 19, Block 107, Indian Hills, a subdivision in the City of Clermont, Florida,

should be sold at foreclosure sale in a manner prescribed by applicable law and the proceeds distributed in the following manner, to wit —

a. Sale fee of clerk of the court.
b. Fee of administrator ad litem.
c. Principal and interest due on R. E. Thomas mortgage note and mortgage.
d. Costs advanced by plaintiff.
e. Fee of plaintiff’s attorney.
f. Principal and interest due on plaintiff’s mortgage note and mortgage.
g. Balance, if any, to be paid into the registry of the court to await this court’s further order.

9. That the administrator ad litem and the attorney for the plaintiff herein are each entitled to a reasonable fee for their services rendered to their respective clients herein.

The court determines that the law applicable in this case is clear and well settled. The more than 30 year old case of Biggs v. Smith, 184 So. 106 (Florida, 1938), holds unequivocally that when the owner of a mortgage satisfies such instrument of record in the manner prescribed by statute, such cancellation is prima facie evidence of the payment of the debt and a discharge of the mortgage lien. Such case goes further and states that such cancellation [105]*105of record can be overcome only if it was done by fraud, accident or mistake. In the case at bar, no testimony of any nature was taken relative to any fraud, accident or mistake and the duly recorded satisfaction must be taken at face value.

The case of Boley v. Daniel, 72 So. 644 (Florida, 1916), holds that when a first mortgage lien existing against real estate is satisfied, the lien of a second mortgage thereon becomes at once, by operation of law, a first lien on the property; and this first lien and the right to enforce it as such, are vested rights. Here, the lien of R. E. Thomas has become a first lien by virtue of the record cancellation of the plaintiff’s theretofore superior lien.

Thereupon, the court does order and adjudge as follows —

a. That due and legal service of process has been had upon the defendants in this cause and this court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this case; that the default judgments heretofore taken against the defendants, Tom B. Jarvis and Thelma Jarvis, his wife, are hereby confirmed.

b. That the mortgage held against the subject property by R. E. Thomas (now estate of R. E. Thomas, deceased) is hereby declared a first lien against the property described therein; that the mortgage held by First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake County, a corporation, against the same property is a valid mortgage lien but is second and inferior to the R. E. Thomas estate mortgage.

c. That a reasonable fee for the services rendered by the administrator ad litem, Arthur E. Roberts, in this cause world be the sum of $1,000, and the court finds this to be a reasonable fee to be allowed for the services of such administrator ad litem, and declares such sum due and owing.

d. That a reasonable fee for the services rendered by the attorney for the plaintiff is the sum of $1,000, and the court finds this to be a reasonable attorney’s fee to be allowed for the services of plaintiff’s attorney, and declares such sum due and owing.

e. That there is due the defendant, estate of R. E. Thomas, deceased, upon the mortgage note and mortgage sued upon the following —

Principal and interest due on the mortgage note and mortgage to date hereof....................

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

Related

Biggs, Et Ux. v. Smith
184 So. 106 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Fla. Supp. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-federal-savings-loan-assn-v-jarvis-flacirct5lak-1971.