Cordero v. Capital Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cordero v. Capital Bank

693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569, 1997 WL 269325

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2620

StatusPublished

This text of 693 So. 2d 720 (Cordero v. Capital 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

Cordero v. Capital Bank, 693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569, 1997 WL 269325 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing the second amended complaint entered in a damage action filed by Agustín Cordero and Old Cutler Bay Development Corporation against Capital Bank. Under the “logical relationship test” set forth in Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14, 20 (Fla.1992), the claims presently asserted by plaintiffs are not compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in the prior mortgage foreclosure action. Although both actions involve business dealings with Capital and Old Cutler and there is some overlap in the events, the basis of both claims is not the same aggregate of operative facts, and the aggregate core of facts supporting the initial foreclosure action does not activate the requisite additional legal rights. The foreclosure action concerning Old Cutler’s liability under the mortgage and the presently asserted claims as to Capital’s wrongful conduct involve distinct facts and legal issues. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order. See Whigum v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture, Inc., 682 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc., 638 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir.1981). Cf. Norris v. Paps, 615 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(fraud in the inducement of a note or mortgage is generally a compulsory counterclaim in a foreclosure action); Key Credit, Inc. v. Espirito Santo Bank of Fla., 610 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(same).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing the second amended complaint entered in a damage action filed by Agustín Cordero and Old Cutler Bay Development Corporation against Capital Bank. Under the “logical relationship test” set forth in Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14, 20 (Fla.1992), the claims presently asserted by plaintiffs are not compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in the prior mortgage foreclosure action. Although both actions involve business dealings with Capital and Old Cutler and there is some overlap in the events, the basis of both claims is not the same aggregate of operative facts, and the aggregate core of facts supporting the initial foreclosure action does not activate the requisite additional legal rights. The foreclosure action concerning Old Cutler’s liability under the mortgage and the presently asserted claims as to Capital’s wrongful conduct involve distinct facts and legal issues. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order. See Whigum v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture, Inc., 682 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Peterson v. United Accounts, Inc., 638 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir.1981). Cf. Norris v. Paps, 615 So.2d 735, 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(fraud in the inducement of a note or mortgage is generally a compulsory counterclaim in a foreclosure action); Key Credit, Inc. v. Espirito Santo Bank of Fla., 610 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(same).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5569, 1997 WL 269325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordero-v-capital-bank-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack