Clark v. Lachenmeier
| Decision Date | 08 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--619,69--619 |
| Citation | 237 So.2d 583 |
| Parties | Edgar E. CLARK and Ada Clark, his wife, Appellants, v. George E. LACHENMEIER and Pearl L. Lachenmeier, his wife, and Autie M. Lewis and Hattie May Lewis, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward A. Linney, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Robert E. Knowles, of Knowles & Blalock, Bradenton, for George E. Lachenmeier and Pearl L. Lachenmeier.
Jack S. Carey, of Carey & Harrison, St. Petersburg, for Autie M. Lewis and Hattie May Lewis.
The lower Court entered an order dismissing appellants' mortgage foreclosure complaint without leave to amend, finding that the acceleration clause in the mortgage was inequitable and unjust, and therefore not affording sufficient reason for foreclosure. We affirm.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the appellees Lachenmeier executed a promissory note and purchase money mortgage to the appellants Clark; that the property was presently owned by the appellees Lewis who held possession; that the appellees had defaulted under the terms of the mortgage by failing to advise the Clarks of the transfer of ownership of the property, as provided in the mortgage, to-wit:
'It is hereby agreed that in the event of transfer of ownership of the above described property that the Mortgagee has the right and privilege of accepting or rejecting, or passing on credit, etc. of such successor in ownership';
that the transfer of ownership was made without advice to, and without approval of transfer of ownership by, the appellants, and that the same constituted a breach of the mortgage and accelerated the same as otherwise provided in the mortgage.
The Clarks did not allege any other breach of the mortgage contract, but relied solely on the failure of notice to them of the sale of the corpus property. Neither did they allege that the security had been impaired by the default, or that they had disapproved the transfer of ownership of the mortgaged property, or that they had not had opportunity to pass on the credit of the successor in ownership. They purported to declare the full amount due to be then due and payable under the note and mortgage and demanded that if the amount due was not paid within a time set by the Court, that the property be sold and a deficiency judgment entered against the appellees if the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to pay appellants' claim.
The clause in dispute does not by its terms accelerate maturity of the whole debt if the property is sold, as in Merriam v. Leeper, 1921, 192 Iowa 587, 185 N.W. 134, but merely provided that in event of transfer of ownership that the mortgagee has the right and privilege of accepting or rejecting, or passing on credit, etc., of such successor in ownership.
Neither party has cited to us a case from any jurisdiction directly in point, and our independent research fails to reveal any case which involves the interpretation of an acceleration clause similar to the one involved here. The circumstances involved in the case of Planters' Lumber Co. v. Griffin Chapel M.E. Church, 1930, 157 Miss. 714, 128 So. 76, cited and relied on by appellants, are quite unlike those arising here, and are therefore not controlling in the case sub judice.
The Florida decisions recognize the right of a mortgagee to accelerate upon default of conditions directed to the preservation of the security, such as the payment of interest, installments of principal, taxes and insurance 'because an investor may very properly insist that his security shall be kept intact or that the loan shall mature.' Treb. Trading Co. v. Green, 1931, 102 Fla. 238, 135 So. 510; 22 Fla.Jur., Mortgages, § 212.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olean v. Treglia
...S.W.2d 725 (1972); Wellenkamp v. Bank of America, 21 Cal.3d 943, 951-53, 148 Cal.Rptr. 379, 582 P.2d 970 (1978); Clark v. Lachenmeier, 237 So.2d 583, 584-85 (Fla.App.1970); Nichols v. Ann Arbor Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 73 Mich.App. 163, 168-74, 250 N.W.2d 804 (1977); Sanders v. Hicks, ......
-
Lake v. Equitable Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...v. Angel, 362 F.Supp. 445 (E.D.Pa.1973); Baltimore Life Insurance Co. v. Harn, 15 Ariz.App. 78, 486 P.2d 190 (1971); Clark v. Lachenmeier, 237 So.2d 583 (Fla.App.1970). Cf. I.C. § As stated in Continental Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fetter, 564 P.2d 1013, 1018 (Okl.1977), "Whatever restraint ......
-
Crockett v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Charlotte
...La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn.,5 Cal.3d 864, 97 Cal.Rptr. 849, 489 P.2d 1113 (1971) (due-on-encumbrance clause); Clark v. Lachenmeier, 237 So.2d 583 (Fla.App.1970); Baker v. Loves Park Savings & Loan Association, 61 Ill.2d 119, 333 N.E.2d 1 (1975) (restraint held to be These classifi......
-
Magney v. Lincoln Mut. Sav. Bank, 4929-III-9
...854-55, 481 S.W.2d 725 (1972); Tucker v. Lassen Sav. & Loan Ass'n, supra at 638, 526 P.2d 1169, 116 Cal.Rptr. 633; Clark v. Lachenmeier, 237 So.2d 583, 584-85 (Fla.App.1970); Sanders v. Hicks, 317 So.2d 61, 63-64 (Miss.1975); United States v. Angel, 362 F.Supp. 445, 447 (E.D.Pa.1973). The c......