Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II

582 So. 2d 165, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674, 1991 WL 120866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 10, 1991

DocketNo. 91-0671

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 165 (Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II) 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

Ensign Bank, F.S.B. v. South Florida Warehousing II, 582 So. 2d 165, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674, 1991 WL 120866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989). The appellant claims it made an honest mistake in adding appellee and its lands to a mortgage foreclosure suit. While it appears that the attorney may have made an honest mistake, relying on an erroneous title examination, we cannot say the same for the appellant bank itself. Approximately two years before the commencement of this action it had executed a partial release of its mortgage as to appel-lee’s land when the mortgagor sold the parcels to the appellee in this appeal. A simple review of the bank’s own files should have revealed this to the bank so that these properties and appellee would have been excluded. This is tantamount to a finding that, as concerns the bank, the suit against appellee was brought recklessly without investigation of its own records and with complete absence of justiciable fact or law. See Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

GUNTHER, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1989). The appellant claims it made an honest mistake in adding appellee and its lands to a mortgage foreclosure suit. While it appears that the attorney may have made an honest mistake, relying on an erroneous title examination, we cannot say the same for the appellant bank itself. Approximately two years before the commencement of this action it had executed a partial release of its mortgage as to appel-lee’s land when the mortgagor sold the parcels to the appellee in this appeal. A simple review of the bank’s own files should have revealed this to the bank so that these properties and appellee would have been excluded. This is tantamount to a finding that, as concerns the bank, the suit against appellee was brought recklessly without investigation of its own records and with complete absence of justiciable fact or law. See Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

GUNTHER, WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 165, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 6674, 1991 WL 120866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ensign-bank-fsb-v-south-florida-warehousing-ii-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack