Nazzaro v. Dupont

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nazzaro v. Dupont

483 So. 2d 884, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 562, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6665

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1986

DocketNo. 84-2432

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 884 (Nazzaro v. Dupont) 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

Nazzaro v. Dupont, 483 So. 2d 884, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 562, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6665 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties entered into a stipulation for dismissal of the foreclosure action which contained a condition that the defendant pay the 1983 ad valorem taxes on the subject property by June 30, 1984. The defendant tendered payment of the taxes on June 29, 1984. For administrative reasons, however, the tax collector refused to accept payment until July 17, 1984, on which date the defendant paid the taxes in full. The plaintiff sought and obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the basis of this default with regard to the tax payment. We find that equity requires that a defendant in foreclosure be excused where, as here, the defendant is technically in default due to circumstances beyond his control, the default is cured by the defendant as soon as practicably possible, and the default has not resulted in an impairment of the security. See Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751, 756 (1929); Schechtman v. Grobbel, 226 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Overholser v. Theroux, 149 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the final judgment of foreclosure is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The parties entered into a stipulation for dismissal of the foreclosure action which contained a condition that the defendant pay the 1983 ad valorem taxes on the subject property by June 30, 1984. The defendant tendered payment of the taxes on June 29, 1984. For administrative reasons, however, the tax collector refused to accept payment until July 17, 1984, on which date the defendant paid the taxes in full. The plaintiff sought and obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the basis of this default with regard to the tax payment. We find that equity requires that a defendant in foreclosure be excused where, as here, the defendant is technically in default due to circumstances beyond his control, the default is cured by the defendant as soon as practicably possible, and the default has not resulted in an impairment of the security. See Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751, 756 (1929); Schechtman v. Grobbel, 226 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Overholser v. Theroux, 149 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the final judgment of foreclosure is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 884, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 562, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nazzaro-v-dupont-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack