Braden River Partners v. Professional Savings Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Braden River Partners v. Professional Savings Bank

562 So. 2d 836, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4086, 1990 WL 77250

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1990

DocketNo. 89-01594

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 562 So. 2d 836 (Braden River Partners v. Professional Savings Bank) 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

Braden River Partners v. Professional Savings Bank, 562 So. 2d 836, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4086, 1990 WL 77250 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal a final judgment of foreclosure entered against their proper[837]*837ties. The final judgment was not stayed and one of two parcels has been sold pending appeal. We affirm.

On appeal the defendants argue that the final judgment should be vacated because the bank did not file the original mortgage and promissory note in the trial court prior to the entry of the judgment. The defendants, however, did not make this objection in the trial court. The evidence did establish the accuracy of the copies which were attached to the bank’s complaint. Now that the defendants have raised this issue on appeal, the bank has repeatedly offered to file the original documents in this court or in the trial court.

Although a plaintiff in a foreclosure action should file or produce for admission into evidence the original mortgage and promissory note, Downing v. First National Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the omission of this requirement is not fundamental error in this case. On remand, the bank must file the original documents prior to further proceedings in the trial court. If the bank does not file these documents, the defendants may seek relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal a final judgment of foreclosure entered against their proper[837]*837ties. The final judgment was not stayed and one of two parcels has been sold pending appeal. We affirm.

On appeal the defendants argue that the final judgment should be vacated because the bank did not file the original mortgage and promissory note in the trial court prior to the entry of the judgment. The defendants, however, did not make this objection in the trial court. The evidence did establish the accuracy of the copies which were attached to the bank’s complaint. Now that the defendants have raised this issue on appeal, the bank has repeatedly offered to file the original documents in this court or in the trial court.

Although a plaintiff in a foreclosure action should file or produce for admission into evidence the original mortgage and promissory note, Downing v. First National Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla.1955); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the omission of this requirement is not fundamental error in this case. On remand, the bank must file the original documents prior to further proceedings in the trial court. If the bank does not file these documents, the defendants may seek relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 So. 2d 836, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4086, 1990 WL 77250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braden-river-partners-v-professional-savings-bank-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack