Shapiro v. Family Bank of Hallandale

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shapiro v. Family Bank of Hallandale

538 So. 2d 944, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1246, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 459, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1989 WL 11235

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1595

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 538 So. 2d 944 (Shapiro v. Family Bank of Hallandale) 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

Shapiro v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 538 So. 2d 944, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1246, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 459, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1989 WL 11235 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

It is unnecessary in this case to decide whether, as the appellant contends, a borrower’s physical possession of the note involved in a note and mortgage financing transaction ordinarily prevails over the security interest of the lender notwithstanding that the lender has recorded an assignment of the mortgage. See J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 23-7, at 270-72 (3d ed. 1988). Contra Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cited in General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Air Flow Indust., 432 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). This is because the possession of the particular note in question here was, in fact, initially validly transferred to the lender and was only then wrongfully reacquired and thereafter retained by the borrower. Even the asserted doctrine that the appellee-lender’s security interest fails because of its lack of possession

cannot apply when the party was prevented from taking possession and thus perfecting his legal lien by [a] wrongful detention....

In re Bruce Farley Corp., 612 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.1980); see In re Atlantic Mortgage Corp., 69 B.R. 321 (E.D.Mich. 1987) (lender deemed in legal possession of note physically held by borrower as constructive trustee). The latter rule applies here.

AFFIRMED.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

It is unnecessary in this case to decide whether, as the appellant contends, a borrower’s physical possession of the note involved in a note and mortgage financing transaction ordinarily prevails over the security interest of the lender notwithstanding that the lender has recorded an assignment of the mortgage. See J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 23-7, at 270-72 (3d ed. 1988). Contra Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So.2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cited in General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Air Flow Indust., 432 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). This is because the possession of the particular note in question here was, in fact, initially validly transferred to the lender and was only then wrongfully reacquired and thereafter retained by the borrower. Even the asserted doctrine that the appellee-lender’s security interest fails because of its lack of possession

cannot apply when the party was prevented from taking possession and thus perfecting his legal lien by [a] wrongful detention....

In re Bruce Farley Corp., 612 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir.1980); see In re Atlantic Mortgage Corp., 69 B.R. 321 (E.D.Mich. 1987) (lender deemed in legal possession of note physically held by borrower as constructive trustee). The latter rule applies here.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 So. 2d 944, 8 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1246, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 459, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 702, 1989 WL 11235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-family-bank-of-hallandale-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack