Tags

, , , , , ,

In the Complaint, Plaintiff states that on July 22, 2004, Defendants entered into a promissory note agreement for $50,000.00 that was secured by a purchase money mortgage on a condominium. Plaintiff received a “settlement” amount of $18,676.54 from the sale of the condominium to a third party. The Plaintiff seeks $31,404.71 allegedly remaining on the obligation with penalties and interest, plus attorney’s fees as provided in the promissory note. Attached to the Complaint are the original Note; the modification agreement; the Final Judgment of Foreclosure entered in favor of the homeowners association; a draft of a Settlement Statement for the new purchaser of the condominium; a copy of a check made payable to Plaintiff for $18,676.54, with the notation “Payoff of first mortgage loan;” a “Satisfaction of Mortgage;” and an accounting of the Defendant’s payment history.

It is alleged that Plaintiff had the option to file his own foreclosure action against the property, but instead elected to accept a monetary settlement with a third party, thereby receiving less than the amount owed on the promissory note, but saving the expense of a foreclosure action.

The Defendants direct the Court to the Satisfaction of Mortgage executed by Plaintiff on February 10, 2011, that references the mortgage on the condominium given to secure the sum of $50,000.000, evidenced by the Note. The document states that Plaintiff “received full payment of said indebtedness and do[es] hereby, acknowledge satisfaction of said mortgage, and hereby directs the Clerk of the said Circuit Court to cancel the same of record.”

As noted above, the Plaintiffs Complaint specifically references and attaches the Satisfaction of Mortgage. The Satisfaction of Mortgage references not only the Mortgage, but also the Note and specifically states that the Plaintiff “received full payment of said indebtedness.” The Complaint does not allege that the Satisfaction was entered as the result of mistake or inadvertence and does not seek rescission and reformation of the Satisfaction of Mortgage. But see All Real Estate Title Servs., Inc. v. Vuu, 67 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2518a].

Pursuant to rule 1.140(c), a motion for judgment on the pleadings restricts this Court’s review of the court file to only the pleadings, unlike a motion for summary Judgment that allows the Court to review the entire court file and any documents filed in support or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. See e.g. Swor v. Dennison, 654 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D1154a]. Upon a review of the Complaint with its exhibits and the Answer and Affirmative Defenses, the Court concludes that the pleadings on their face reveal that there are no facts to be resolved by a trier of fact. The Satisfaction of Mortgage is clear on its face. Applying the law to the uncontroverted facts, the Court concludes that the Satisfaction of Mortgage stating that the full payment of the indebtedness has been received by Plaintiff demonstrates that the Note has been satisfied and precludes the Plaintiff’s action on the Note for the sum Plaintiff alleges remains due.

WATRAS v. MALYNIAK. Circuit Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 11-003573CI-07. UCN 522011CA003573XXCICI. October 14, 2011.

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1901WATR

Advertisements