Haren v. Sundie

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haren v. Sundie

219 So. 2d 731, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1969

DocketNo. 68-445

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 So. 2d 731 (Haren v. Sundie) 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

Haren v. Sundie, 219 So. 2d 731, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6205 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants have appealed from a summary final judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage. It conclusively appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits that there is no genuine issue as to the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. There does appear to be a genuine issue as to the allegation of the defendants’ affirmative defense of payment.

The record when considered with every inference against the plaintiff as the moving party upon the motion for summary judgment does not conclusively refute the defendants’ allegation that the indebtedness was discharged in whole or in part by a transfer of corporate stock to persons who were holders of the note and mortgage before the latter were acquired by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellee is an attorney who acted as attorney for the corporation which had issued the stock in [732]*732question. He took the note and mortgage by assignment after the due date.

We therefore hold that the summary final judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a proper order pursuant to Rule 1.510(d), R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. Cf. Carvajal v. Apfelbaum, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 756.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants have appealed from a summary final judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage. It conclusively appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits that there is no genuine issue as to the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. There does appear to be a genuine issue as to the allegation of the defendants’ affirmative defense of payment.

The record when considered with every inference against the plaintiff as the moving party upon the motion for summary judgment does not conclusively refute the defendants’ allegation that the indebtedness was discharged in whole or in part by a transfer of corporate stock to persons who were holders of the note and mortgage before the latter were acquired by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellee is an attorney who acted as attorney for the corporation which had issued the stock in [732]*732question. He took the note and mortgage by assignment after the due date.

We therefore hold that the summary final judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a proper order pursuant to Rule 1.510(d), R.C.P., 31 F.S.A. Cf. Carvajal v. Apfelbaum, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 756.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 2d 731, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haren-v-sundie-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack