- 27 -
evidence of record. Indeed, on brief, petitioner states that
“Mr. Medlin’s testimony clouded by the passage of so many years
was not precise.” We cannot accept petitioner’s unsubstantiated
testimony.16
If we were to accept petitioner’s unsubstantiated testimony
at face value that an installment obligation was pledged as
collateral for loan proceeds, section 453B would be largely
ineffective. Where as here, no documentary proof has been
introduced to show that petitioner remained personally liable for
any failure of the mortgagor’s payment, we cannot accept that the
assignment was a pledge of collateral.
Certainly, the form of the assignment was a sale. The
assignment of mortgage filed with Osceola County states that Ms.
Allen assigned the mortgage to Charles Medlin “in consideration
of the sum of” $36,000. Moreover, petitioner’s instructions to
the mortgagor were that direct payments were to be made to his
father following the assignment. Further, although petitioner
testified to his continued involvement in the collection of the
mortgage, he could not testify definitively as to whether he or
Charles Medlin received the mortgage payments. Nevertheless,
petitioner claims that the assignment of the mortgage occurred
16Petitioner testified that he signed a promissory note to
his father as collateral; however, he did not produce any such
note for the record. Petitioner relies solely on his testimony
and cites the fact that records and witnesses have been lost or
are unavailable.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011