Midlantic National Bank v. Holewinski

465 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 797, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13128
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 1985
DocketNo. 84-1238
StatusPublished

This text of 465 So. 2d 669 (Midlantic National Bank v. Holewinski) 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
Midlantic National Bank v. Holewinski, 465 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 797, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13128 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. At issue in the court below was the priority of liens on real property held by the parties to this appeal. The appellee, a judgment creditor, whose lien attached prior to that of the appellant, a construction mortgage lender, was successful in the court below in claiming that a subordination agreement executed by him in favor of the appellant lender was invalid by reason of the lender’s failure to.execute the agreement and its breach thereof. There is evidence in the record that the subordination agreement was executed by the appellee and that the lender substantially funded the loan to the property owner contemplated by the agreement. There is also proof that the appellee received payments from the periodic sale of improvements made on the property and that the improvements were made by use of the loan proceeds. However, on the record before us it is unclear as to exactly what agreement existed between the parties and the property owner as to the payment of appellee’s judgment, the effect of the subordination agreement on the payment, and the extent to which any agreement was performed or breached by the parties or the property owner who secured the loan.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. Our ruling on the summary judgment issue also dictates that the trial court reconsider the appellant’s motion to amend.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents without opinion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 797, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midlantic-national-bank-v-holewinski-fladistctapp-1985.