- 28 -                                         
          without an assignment of the promissory note and that this                  
          indicates the mortgage was assigned to Charles Medlin as                    
          collateral for a loan.17  However, the assignment of the mortgage           
          states that the mortgage “Together with the note or obligation              
          described in said mortgage, and the moneys due and to become due            
          thereon” were transferred.  We hold that petitioner recognized              
          gain of $30,925 from the sale of an installment obligation in               
          1985.                                                                       
               2.  Susan’s Lakefront Estate (OS-03)                                   
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               In 1970, Medlin Investment Co. purchased certain real                  
          property in Osceola County, Florida, for $59,005.  This property            
          was subdivided as “Susan’s Lakefront Estate” and consisted of 30            
          lots (Lot 1, Lot 2, * * *, Lot 30) and one tract (Tract A).                 
               On July 2, 1985, petitioner through Ms. Allen, as trustee,             
          sold Lot 1 for $22,000.  Petitioner did not report any income               
          from this sale on his 1985 Form 1040.  On June 12, 1986,                    
          petitioner through Ms. Allen, as trustee, sold Tract A, for                 
          $23,000.  Petitioner did not report any income from this sale on            
          his 1986 Form 1040.  On May 25, 1988, petitioner through Mr.                
               17We note that a mortgage generally secures payment of the             
          underlying installment obligation and that an assignment of the             
          mortgage without an assignment of the note creates no right in              
          the assignee with respect to the note.  See Vance v. Fields, 172            
          So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965).                                 
Page:  Previous   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011