Bakst v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bakst v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

617 So. 2d 402, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477, 1993 WL 120535

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2248

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 402 (Bakst v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) 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

Bakst v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 617 So. 2d 402, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477, 1993 WL 120535 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Alvin Bakst, appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as receiver of First American Bank and Trust [FDIC]. The affidavit of indebtedness failed to disprove the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant and FDIC failed to demonstrate the legal insufficiency of the defenses. See Campagna v. Dicus, 606 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, FDIC is not entitled to a summary judgment. Johnson & Kirby, Inc. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Fort Lauderdale, 338 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sisung, 174 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

Moreover, the defendant concedes that he is liable on the promissory note. However, genuine issues of material fact still exist as to whether payments were properly credited and as to the actual amount of money that is still due. We hold that final summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), and we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Alvin Bakst, appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as receiver of First American Bank and Trust [FDIC]. The affidavit of indebtedness failed to disprove the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant and FDIC failed to demonstrate the legal insufficiency of the defenses. See Campagna v. Dicus, 606 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, FDIC is not entitled to a summary judgment. Johnson & Kirby, Inc. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Fort Lauderdale, 338 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sisung, 174 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

Moreover, the defendant concedes that he is liable on the promissory note. However, genuine issues of material fact still exist as to whether payments were properly credited and as to the actual amount of money that is still due. We hold that final summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966), and we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 402, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477, 1993 WL 120535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakst-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corp-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack