Mathews v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathews v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

507 So. 2d 1196, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1379, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8546

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 2, 1987·No. No. 86-3016·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, there remains a material issue of fact which cannot be settled due to a question as to the competency and authority of the movant’s affiant, see Montejo Investments, N.V. v. Green Co., 471 So.2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the supporting affidavits did not disprove the affirmative defenses or establish the legal insufficiency of these defenses, O’Neal v. Brady, 476 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), it was error to enter summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, there remains a material issue of fact which cannot be settled due to a question as to the competency and authority of the movant’s affiant, see Montejo Investments, N.V. v. Green Co., 471 So.2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the supporting affidavits did not disprove the affirmative defenses or establish the legal insufficiency of these defenses, O’Neal v. Brady, 476 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), it was error to enter summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Mathews v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB, 507 So. 2d 1196, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1379, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8546 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

507 So. 2d 1196 (Mathews v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related