Heim v. Kirkland, 77-1285

Decision Date14 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1285,77-1285
Citation356 So.2d 850
PartiesRoger G. HEIM, Trustee, Appellant, v. Thomas R. KIRKLAND, Trustee, Thomas R. Kirkland, Individually, and Gloria J. Kirkland, his wife, and Umatilla State Bank, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Calvin J. Faucett, Orlando, for appellant.

Gerald S. Livingston, Orlando, for appellee-Thomas R. Kirkland.

Zebulon L. Osborne, Eustis, for appellee-Umatilla State Bank.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant Roger C. Heim, trustee, takes this interlocutory appeal in an action to foreclose a mortgage from an order of the trial court striking appellant's prayer for a deficiency decree.

The mortgage and note in question contained a provision that the land described in the mortgage was to stand as the sole security with no further recourse against the maker-mortgagor. However, in his complaint appellant prayed for an accounting of the principal, interest, late charges, abstracting, taxes, expenses and costs due from the mortgagor, and for a deficiency decree should a deficiency result. Appellees moved to strike the portions of the prayer relative to the claim for taxes, costs, attorney's fees and any claim for a deficiency, based upon the provision of the note and mortgage designating the land as the sole security and precluding any further recourse against appellees. The trial court entered an order thereon, holding in pertinent part:

"The Court finds, by virtue of the provisions of the note attached to the mortgage, Exhibit 'A' to the Complaint, that the Mortgagor, THOMAS R. KIRKLAND, Trustee, has no personal liability for payment of principal or interest on the mortgage note or for late charges, or for abstracting charges, taxes, expenses, costs or attorney's fees incurred by reason of this suit, and that the foregoing constitute a lien upon the property only. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's prayer for deficiency judgment against the Defendants be, and is hereby, granted and the claim for deficiency judgment against the Defendants be, and is hereby struck from the Complaint filed herein,"

We fail to find any error in the order being reviewed. The mortgagor-maker covenanted that he would pay the taxes and other charges so that, as against the land, in the event of a default and foreclosure of the mortgage the mortgagee would be entitled to a judgment for the principal, interest, taxes, attorney's fees and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Berkeley Properties, Inc. v. Balcor Pension Investors, II
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 31, 1992
    ...Illinois law (Bank of Benton v. Cogdill (1983), 118 Ill.App.3d 280, 73 Ill.Dec. 871, 454 N.E.2d 1120) and Florida law (Heim v. Kirkland (Fla.App.1978), 356 So.2d 850) it could not receive a deficiency judgment because of the non-recourse nature of the note. It also concedes that under Flori......
  • Suchman Corporate Park, Inc. v. Greenstein, 91-2583
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1992
    ...are without recourse against the individual plaintiffs who have "no personal liability" under either instrument. See Heim v. Kirkland, 356 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The effect of any eventual award of fees to the mortgagees must be limited to an increase in the principal amount of any ......
  • Castellanos v. Reverse Mortg. Funding LLC
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 2021
    ...are without recourse against the individual plaintiffs who have "no personal liability" under either instrument . See Heim v. Kirkland, 356 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The effect of any eventual award of fees to the mortgagees must be limited to an increase in the principal amount of any......
  • Thomas v. Hartman
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 9, 1989
    ...was "good" security. Compare the language here with Sample v. Hundred Lakes Corp., 107 Fla. 568, 145 So. 193 (1933); Heim v. Kirkland, 356 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Policastro v. Rudt, 180 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA The language here does not contain any latent ambiguity. The language "sol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT