Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 698.01 (2025)
To be recorded.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
698.01 To be recorded.—No chattel mortgage shall be valid or effectual against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice unless it be recorded, or unless the property included in it be delivered to the mortgagee and continue to remain truly and bona fide in her or his possession.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1947–1977 · leading case: Richardson Tractor Co. v. Square Deal Mach. & Supply Co., 149 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
Richardson Tractor Co. v. Square Deal Mach. & Supply Co., 149 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). “It must be borne in mind that the contract on which the plaintiff recovered possession of the tractor was a conditional sale contract, pursuant to which the plaintiff-seller retained title to the tractor pending payment of the purchase price. It was not a chattel mortgage that…”
Florida First Nat. Bank v. Dent, 350 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “Section 698.01, Florida Statutes (1969), did indeed require two subscribing witnesses.”
Lee v. Bank of Georgia, 32 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1947). “The first is Section 698.01 Florida Statutes 1941 (same F.”
Merit Clothing Co. v. Lees, 218 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). “The transfer in the case sub judice in satisfaction of a pre-existing debt evidenced by an unrecorded note and chattel mortgage will not operate to defeat the claims of general, unsecured creditors existing prior to the conveyance when said creditors were without knowledge of…”
Jones v. Dobkin, 15 Fla. Supp. 70 (Dade Cty. Civ. & Crim. Ct. Rec. 1959). “He fails to distinguish provisions of section 698.01, Florida Statutes 1957, which does so require on any instrument of present conveyance, and provisions of the Statute of Frauds, section 725.”
United States v. Pagano, 188 F. Supp. 774 (E.D.N.Y 1960). “Fla.Stat. § 698.01, F.S.A.; accord, Love v.”
Donoghue v. Beeler, 127 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). “Unless § 698.01, supra, has no meaning, then it is my opinion that the majority conclusion is incorrect and that the appellee is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.”
Austin v. Harden, 152 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). “Under Fla.Stat. § 698.01, F.S.A., 2 no chattel mortgage is valid as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice unless appropriately recorded.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.