Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mottice

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mottice

573 So. 2d 1016, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 750, 1991 WL 10427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1527

StatusPublished

This text of 573 So. 2d 1016 (Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mottice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anchor Savings Bank, FSB v. Mottice, 573 So. 2d 1016, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 750, 1991 WL 10427 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment ruling that appellant waived its right to increase the interest rate on a note and mortgage pursuant to the terms of a modification agreement. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error in the court’s construction of the agreement. The modification agreement is ambiguous and the court adopted a permissible construction of its terms. We likewise find no error in the award of relief under the gen[1017]*1017eral prayer for relief in the complaint. Ap-pellee concedes that the court erred in reserving jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees to appellee, and that provision is hereby vacated. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in all respects except the vacated provision relating to attorney’s fees.

ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment ruling that appellant waived its right to increase the interest rate on a note and mortgage pursuant to the terms of a modification agreement. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error in the court’s construction of the agreement. The modification agreement is ambiguous and the court adopted a permissible construction of its terms. We likewise find no error in the award of relief under the gen[1017]*1017eral prayer for relief in the complaint. Ap-pellee concedes that the court erred in reserving jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees to appellee, and that provision is hereby vacated. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in all respects except the vacated provision relating to attorney’s fees.

ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 So. 2d 1016, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 750, 1991 WL 10427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anchor-savings-bank-fsb-v-mottice-fladistctapp-1991.