note would also no longer be an promise” to pay. This is because “unconditional the note would be subject to and governed by the mortgage, Fla. Stat. see §673.1061(b), and the rights and obligations with respect to the promise would likewise be governed by the mortgage, Fla. Stat. §673.1061(c). see See also Holly 314 So. 2d 209, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA Hills Acres, Ltd. v. Charter Bank of Gainesville, 1975) (providing that note having incorporated the terms of the purchase “The money mortgage was not negotiable…[because] [t]he note, incorporating by reference the terms of the mortgage, did not contain the unconditional promise to pay.”) Because incorporating the terms of the mortgage into the negotiation of the promissory note under the guise that mortgage follows the note” annihilates “the any negotiability the note might have, mere possession of the original note by RCS Assuming, that the promissory note is negotiable, RCS arguendo, was not the holder because the note was constructively delivered to its undisclosed principal Even ignoring arguments I(b)(i) and (ii), RCS did not have standing to foreclose the mortgage because the note was delivered to its undisclosed principal. As RCS was not the party whom the note was delivered to, it could not be considered the of the note. “holder” A of a negotiable instrument is defined as person in “holder” “[t]he possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an
note would also no longer be an “unconditional promise” to pay. This is because the note would be subject to and governed by the mortgage, see Fla. Stat. §673.1061(b), and the rights and obligations with respect to the promise would likewise be governed by the mortgage, see Fla. Stat. §673.1061(c). See also Holly Hills Acres, Ltd. v. Charter Bank of Gainesville, 314 So. 2d 209, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (providing that “The note having incorporated the terms of the purchase money mortgage was not negotiable…[because] [t]he note, incorporating by reference the terms of the mortgage, did not contain the unconditional promise to pay.”) Because incorporating the terms of the mortgage into the negotiation of the promissory note under the guise that “the mortgage follows the note” annihilates any negotiability the note might have, mere possession of the original note by RCS Assuming, arguendo, that the promissory note is negotiable, RCS was not the holder because the note was constructively delivered to its undisclosed principal Even ignoring arguments I(b)(i) and (ii), RCS did not have standing to foreclose the mortgage because the note was delivered to its undisclosed principal. As RCS was not the party whom the note was delivered to, it could not be considered the “holder” of the note. A “holder” of a negotiable instrument is defined as “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an