REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
MANZINI & ASSOCIATES, P.A., APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1993-05-11
No. 92-2178
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
621 So. 2d 709 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Topics
Mistake Of Fact Actual Knowledge Reliance Estoppel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mistake Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER'CURIAM.

The law is clear that where a release or satisfaction of a mortgage is the result of mistake, it will not inure to the benefit of a person acquiring an interest in the property who did not rely or advance anything on the faith of such discharge. United Serv. Corp. v. Vi-An Constr. Corp., 77 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1955); see First Family Mortgage Corp. v. White, 549 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

In the instant case, it is undisputed that appellee, Manzini & Associates, P.A., a law firm which accepted a quitclaim deed to a condominium in lieu of payment for legal services, had actual knowledge of an existing mortgage on the property transferred. Under these circumstances, mistaken information subsequently given the firm by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as to the mortgage’s satisfaction is not controlling, since the firm neither relied on nor advanced anything on the basis of the information.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order which concluded that the mortgage holder, Republic National Bank, was estopped from asserting its mortgage interest in the condominium is reversed and the case remanded with instructions that summary judgment be entered in the bank’s favor.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cherry v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2002)
    …econd, Chase argues that this Court would be providing a windfall to Cherry in denying the foreclosure since Cherry did not “rely or advance anything” on the erroneous mortgage satisfaction. Republic National Bank of Miami v. Manzini & Assoc., 621 So.2d 709, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This Court will not provide either party to this action any windfall resulting from Cherry’s failure to tender mortgage payments. The denial of the foreclosure is not made on reliance grounds and, therefore, this argument wi…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw