Frank v. Land Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frank v. Land Services, Inc.

327 So. 2d 851, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14730

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1976

DocketNo. 74-683

StatusPublished

This text of 327 So. 2d 851 (Frank v. Land Services, Inc.) 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

Frank v. Land Services, Inc., 327 So. 2d 851, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14730 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts of this complex litigation need not be stated for purposes of disposing of this appeal. The only issue which merits discussion pertains to the priorities between Robert R. Frank and the Orange Blossom Group in the proceeds of the mortgage foreclosure. In this respect, we hold that the court below erred in holding that the interest of Robert R. Frank in the mortgages securing the payment to him of $32,000 was subordinate to the interests of the other mortgagees.

The settlement agreement entered into on October 3, 1972, between all of the parties reflects an intent to give Frank security under the mortgages equal in dignity to the other mortgagees and renders the authorities cited by the Orange Blossom Group inapplicable to this case. Cf. Kissimmee Everglades Land Co. v. Carr, 1924, 88 Fla. 387, 102 So. 335. Our holding does not affect any payments previously made to the Orange Blossom Group because there was nothing to prevent the mortgagor from making payments on whichever promissory note it pleased.

The judgment is affirmed in all respects, except that Frank shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the mortgage foreclosure on a pro rata basis with the other mortgagees.

McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facts of this complex litigation need not be stated for purposes of disposing of this appeal. The only issue which merits discussion pertains to the priorities between Robert R. Frank and the Orange Blossom Group in the proceeds of the mortgage foreclosure. In this respect, we hold that the court below erred in holding that the interest of Robert R. Frank in the mortgages securing the payment to him of $32,000 was subordinate to the interests of the other mortgagees.

The settlement agreement entered into on October 3, 1972, between all of the parties reflects an intent to give Frank security under the mortgages equal in dignity to the other mortgagees and renders the authorities cited by the Orange Blossom Group inapplicable to this case. Cf. Kissimmee Everglades Land Co. v. Carr, 1924, 88 Fla. 387, 102 So. 335. Our holding does not affect any payments previously made to the Orange Blossom Group because there was nothing to prevent the mortgagor from making payments on whichever promissory note it pleased.

The judgment is affirmed in all respects, except that Frank shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the mortgage foreclosure on a pro rata basis with the other mortgagees.

McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 So. 2d 851, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-land-services-inc-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack