Waldorff Insurance and Bonding, Inc. v. Eglin National Bank

453 So.2d 1383 (1984)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Waldorff Insurance and Bonding, Inc. v. Eglin National Bank

Florida District Court of Appeal
453 So.2d 1383 (1984)

Play video

Facts

Choctaw Partnership (Choctaw) developed a condominium complex. In 1972, Choctaw secured a mortgage of $850,000 for this property. This mortgage was assigned to Eglin National Bank (defendant) (Eglin) in 1975. Meanwhile, in April 1973, Waldorff Insurance and Bonding, Inc. (plaintiff) (Waldorff) entered into a sales contract with Choctaw regarding Unit 111 of the building. Waldorff put a down payment on the unit, paid to furnish it, paid all fees associated with it, and had exclusive access to the unit. In October 1973, Choctaw obtained another mortgage with Eglin on the condominium, including Unit 111. In June 1974, Choctaw obtained still another mortgage on the property, including Unit 111, from Eglin. In 1974, Choctaw, who was also a client of Waldorff, negotiated a deal whereby Waldorff would “write off” the balance due on Choctaw’s account in exchange for Choctaw considering the mortgage debt for Unit 111 paid in full. The deed transferring Unit 111 to Waldorff was recorded in March 1975. In 1976, Eglin foreclosed on Choctaw. The trial court determined that Waldoff’s claim to ownership of Unit 111 was “equivocal” because Choctaw allowed other persons to occupy and use other units, thereby making Waldorff’s claim to ownership appear questionable, and because Waldorff had not supplied consideration to complete the sale transaction. Thus, it held that Waldorff’s interest in Unit 111 was not superior to the liens created by the 1973 and 1974 mortgages. Waldorff appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Shivers, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership