Rashid v. Newberry Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

502 So. 2d 1316, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 609, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6958

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is undisputed upon this record that the appellee bank, pursuant to its obligation under a mortgage contract, was required to provide a thirty-day notice of default to the appellant, Rashid.¹ It is likewise undisputed that no thirty-day notice was given to anyone. In addition to the bank’s failure to comply with the thirty-day notice, the record shows that a number of other discovery issues have not been properly resolved. Summary judgment, therefore, is inappropriate. See Marlar v. Quincy State Bank, 463 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Foxfire Inn of Stuart, Florida, Inc. v. Neff, 433 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Salzberg v. Eisenberg, 368 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

1 . The contract provided that the mortgage was binding upon "the respective successors and assigns of Lender' and Borrower." Rashid is a successor to the borrower. The bank’s argu-meat that Rashid was not entitled to notice because he was not a party to the contract is, therefore, unavailing.