Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Savings, F.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Savings, F.A.

617 So. 2d 739, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3648, 1993 WL 95669

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1993

DocketNo. 92-03031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 739 (Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Savings, F.A.) 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

Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Savings, F.A., 617 So. 2d 739, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3648, 1993 WL 95669 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

The appellant challenges the court’s order granting summary final judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action. A review of the record reveals genuine issues of fact remain whether payments were made on the mortgage and whether the evidence establishes the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses asserted. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Brooks v. Brooks, 454 So.2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Howdeshell v. First Nat’l Bank of Clearwater, 369 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Historically, parties have pursued mortgage foreclosures in summary judgment proceedings through the presentation of affidavits. However, if the record reflects the existence of any issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper. Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We encourage attorneys to carefully review their causes to determine whether presenting the evidence at a hearing would be more appropriate than moving for summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

The appellant challenges the court’s order granting summary final judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action. A review of the record reveals genuine issues of fact remain whether payments were made on the mortgage and whether the evidence establishes the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses asserted. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Brooks v. Brooks, 454 So.2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Howdeshell v. First Nat’l Bank of Clearwater, 369 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Historically, parties have pursued mortgage foreclosures in summary judgment proceedings through the presentation of affidavits. However, if the record reflects the existence of any issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper. Gomes v. Stevens, 548 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We encourage attorneys to carefully review their causes to determine whether presenting the evidence at a hearing would be more appropriate than moving for summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 739, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3648, 1993 WL 95669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennco-inc-v-meritor-savings-fa-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack