432 So. 2d 788 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1983
This case involves the construction of the release provision of a real estate mortgage. The trial court ruled that the sum required to secure the release of a described portion of the property included the down payment. We reverse.
The objective facts of the matter are undisputed. In 1977, Diaz bought a large tract of land in Dade County from the appellant, Agricultural Alumni Seed Improvement Association, Inc. (AASIA).
See attached sheet marked “Schedule “A”.2
This is a Purchase Money First Mortgage.
The mortgagee herein for itself, its successors and assigns, agrees to release from the lien and operation of this mortgage any of the parcels described on the attached sheet upon the payment to the mortgagee, its successors or assigns, as follows, to-wit;
For Parcel I — $335,000.00, plus accrued interest on the amount then being paid for the release.
For Parcel II — $290,000.00, plus accrued interest on the amount then being paid for the release.
For Parcel III — $175,000.00, plus accrued interest on the amount then being paid for the release.
After Diaz had made some $230,000 in mortgage payments, he demanded the release of Parcel I from the mortgage lien on the ground that, with the inclusion of the $150,000 down payment, the total exceeded the $335,000 provided in the mortgage. In the present action, which Diaz instituted after AASIA rejected this demand, the trial court agreed with his position. Ruling almost wholly upon its interpretation of the documents in question, it granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ordering AASIA to release Parcel I. This determination was incorrect.
The primary argument advanced by Diaz lies in the fact that the total amount for the three releases is $800,000 which, he says, must include the $150,000 down payment. We cannot agree with this contention. We reiterate
For these reasons, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed.
. This entity is an organization of alumni of Purdue University.
. Schedule A contains the legal descriptions of Parcels I, II, and III.
. As is emphasized below, the mortgagor has the choice of designating which parcels are to be released and in what order.
. Or “Parcel II — $290,000 [including the down payment]” or “Parcel III — $175,000 [including the down payment].” The alternative “or” is significant, because, as has been and will be noted, see note 3, supra, the three release clauses are not interdependent and the $150,-000 could therefore be applied only to one. That the parties did not state which one is thus a strong indication that such a credit was not intended to apply to any of them.
. Notes 3 and 4, supra.
. And an “expert” in real estate financing who filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment below.
. Thus, in this case, Parcel III, with a “release price” of $175,000, might be released for only $25,000 in remaining payments plus interest, if Parcels I and II had already been released for $625,000.