GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Canales

District Court of Appeal of Florida

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Canales

691 So. 2d 21, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 1997 WL 134072

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 26, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2150

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 691 So. 2d 21 (GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Canales) 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

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Canales, 691 So. 2d 21, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 1997 WL 134072 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. [GE] appeals an order of the trial court which was entered on GE’s motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action against Maguy Canales, et al. At first blush, it appears that the order is a non-appealable, non-final order denying GE’s motion for summary judgment. A closer examination reveals, however, that the trial court went on to deny the acceleration request and to alter the terms of the mortgage notwithstanding the total absence of any defense put forward by the appellees. One can certainly understand the trial judge’s desire to avoid presenting the appellees with a misfortune in addition to the ones that appear to have befallen them. However, the law which we must follow is clear: in the absence of any valid defense the trial court cannot refuse to enforce the terms of a note and mortgage. David v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 461 So.2d 93 (Fla.1984).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. [GE] appeals an order of the trial court which was entered on GE’s motion for summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action against Maguy Canales, et al. At first blush, it appears that the order is a non-appealable, non-final order denying GE’s motion for summary judgment. A closer examination reveals, however, that the trial court went on to deny the acceleration request and to alter the terms of the mortgage notwithstanding the total absence of any defense put forward by the appellees. One can certainly understand the trial judge’s desire to avoid presenting the appellees with a misfortune in addition to the ones that appear to have befallen them. However, the law which we must follow is clear: in the absence of any valid defense the trial court cannot refuse to enforce the terms of a note and mortgage. David v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 461 So.2d 93 (Fla.1984).

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 So. 2d 21, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3207, 1997 WL 134072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ge-capital-mortgage-services-inc-v-canales-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack