Kanu v. Pointe Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kanu v. Pointe Bank

861 So. 2d 498, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18351, 2003 WL 22850028

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-2866

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 498 (Kanu v. Pointe 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

Kanu v. Pointe Bank, 861 So. 2d 498, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18351, 2003 WL 22850028 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure because the affidavits submitted by appellee did not conclusively refute one of the affirmative defenses raised by appellant. See Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). ■ Appellant alleged that she made payments to appellee prior to the notice of default and made other payment plan agreements thereafter, and appellee failed to provide notice of its intent to accelerate the balance due on the mortgage. The affidavit of indebtedness filed by appellee did not include the date of the last payment, nor did it even state that the loan was in default.. All it contained was the amount due as of a date after the filing of the lawsuit. Therefore, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the loan was in default when the bank elected to accelerate.

Appellee conclusively refuted the remaining affirmative defenses, as well as the issues raised in the counterclaim. Our reversal is therefore limited to the establishment of a default and entitlement to acceleration by the appellee.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure because the affidavits submitted by appellee did not conclusively refute one of the affirmative defenses raised by appellant. See Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). ■ Appellant alleged that she made payments to appellee prior to the notice of default and made other payment plan agreements thereafter, and appellee failed to provide notice of its intent to accelerate the balance due on the mortgage. The affidavit of indebtedness filed by appellee did not include the date of the last payment, nor did it even state that the loan was in default.. All it contained was the amount due as of a date after the filing of the lawsuit. Therefore, there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the loan was in default when the bank elected to accelerate.

Appellee conclusively refuted the remaining affirmative defenses, as well as the issues raised in the counterclaim. Our reversal is therefore limited to the establishment of a default and entitlement to acceleration by the appellee.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 498, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18351, 2003 WL 22850028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanu-v-pointe-bank-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack