Fernandez v. Olsavsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fernandez v. Olsavsky

722 So. 2d 953, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16352, 1998 WL 903979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 98-2487

StatusPublished

This text of 722 So. 2d 953 (Fernandez v. Olsavsky) 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

Fernandez v. Olsavsky, 722 So. 2d 953, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16352, 1998 WL 903979 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, J.

This is a non-final appeal stemming from a contract between Jennifer Fernandez .and Randall Olsavsky for the purchase and sale of residential property. At closing, Fernandez, as purchaser, gave Olsavsky, as seller, a purchase money mortgage lien on the property. Thereafter, Fernandez, apparently for the first time, learned of allegedly significant defects in the property. She then stopped making mortgage payments.

Olsavsky filed a complaint for foreclosure, to which Fernandez filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim. Olsavsky then filed a motion to dismiss or sever the counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion; however, it required Fernandez to deposit into an interest bearing escrow account the past-due mortgage payments, future mortgage payments as they became due, and the balloon mortgage payment after it became due. From this ’latter order, Fernandez appeals.

Generally, payment of money-in-controversy into the court registry is governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600, which provides,

In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party may deposit all or any part of such sum or thing with the court upon notice to every other party and by leave of court. Money paid into court under this rule shall be deposited and withdrawn by order of court.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.600. Nothing in rule 1.600 authorizes a trial court to require a mortgagor to deposit mortgage payments into the court’s registry. Hughes v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 621 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); compare Williams v. First Union Nat. Bank, 591 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(affirming, under § 697.07, Fla. Stat. (1989), court order compelling the deposit of rents pursuant to a mortgage provision assigning such rents to the mortgagee). We, therefore, reverse the order requiring the deposit.

STONE, C.J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

POLEN, J.

This is a non-final appeal stemming from a contract between Jennifer Fernandez .and Randall Olsavsky for the purchase and sale of residential property. At closing, Fernandez, as purchaser, gave Olsavsky, as seller, a purchase money mortgage lien on the property. Thereafter, Fernandez, apparently for the first time, learned of allegedly significant defects in the property. She then stopped making mortgage payments.

Olsavsky filed a complaint for foreclosure, to which Fernandez filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim. Olsavsky then filed a motion to dismiss or sever the counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion; however, it required Fernandez to deposit into an interest bearing escrow account the past-due mortgage payments, future mortgage payments as they became due, and the balloon mortgage payment after it became due. From this ’latter order, Fernandez appeals.

Generally, payment of money-in-controversy into the court registry is governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600, which provides,

In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party may deposit all or any part of such sum or thing with the court upon notice to every other party and by leave of court. Money paid into court under this rule shall be deposited and withdrawn by order of court.

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.600. Nothing in rule 1.600 authorizes a trial court to require a mortgagor to deposit mortgage payments into the court’s registry. Hughes v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 621 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); compare Williams v. First Union Nat. Bank, 591 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(affirming, under § 697.07, Fla. Stat. (1989), court order compelling the deposit of rents pursuant to a mortgage provision assigning such rents to the mortgagee). We, therefore, reverse the order requiring the deposit.

STONE, C.J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 So. 2d 953, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16352, 1998 WL 903979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-olsavsky-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack