Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp.

509 So. 2d 966
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 30, 1987
Docket86-2240, 86-2795
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 509 So. 2d 966 (Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage 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
Boyd v. Banc One Mortgage Corp., 509 So. 2d 966 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

509 So.2d 966 (1987)

Willa Mae BOYD and Eli Boyd, Jr., Appellants,
v.
BANC ONE MORTGAGE CORP., Appellee.

Nos. 86-2240, 86-2795.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 30, 1987.

*967 Alec Ross, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted and the above cases are hereby consolidated. The opinions of this court previously issued in these cases are withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.

The trial court erroneously appointed a receiver without testimony, sworn pleadings or an affidavit demonstrating a show of "waste" which impairs the equity of security. Error was committed notwithstanding the provisions in the mortgage providing for 1) the appointment of a receiver in the event of default in the payment of the note secured thereby or other default in the mortgage, and 2) the assignment of rents from the secured property as additional collateral. Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241 (1930); Armour Fertilizer Works v. First Nat'l Bank of Brooksville, 87 Fla. 436, 100 So. 362 (1924); Polycoat Corp. v. City Nat'l Bank of Miami, 327 So.2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Edenfield v. Crisp, 186 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Plus, it was error for the order appointing a receiver not to require a bond of either the plaintiff or receiver. Edenfield, supra; Belk's Dept. Store, Miami, Inc. v. Scherman, 117 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

For this reason, the interlocutory order under review is reversed, the final judgment of foreclosure and all proceedings thereafter are vacated, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

ALAFAYA SQUARE v. Great Western Bank
700 So. 2d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Mandel v. First Union National Bank of Florida
581 So. 2d 192 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Shops of Sunset, Ltd. v. Cohen
551 So. 2d 1272 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Chromy v. Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis
546 So. 2d 1172 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
M.R.D. Properties Ltd. v. Shangri-La Resorts II, Inc.
546 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Colley v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Panama City
516 So. 2d 344 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Colley v. FIRST FED. SAV. & L. ASS'N
516 So. 2d 344 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Coin Copies, Inc. v. Financial Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Dade County
513 So. 2d 790 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Fla. Reinvestment Corp. v. Cypress Sav.
509 So. 2d 1352 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 So. 2d 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-banc-one-mortgage-corp-fladistctapp-1987.