Roland v. Gold Coast Savings & Loan Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roland v. Gold Coast Savings & Loan Ass'n

528 So. 2d 111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1648, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2961, 1988 WL 70688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 13, 1988

DocketNo. 88-0249

StatusPublished

This text of 528 So. 2d 111 (Roland v. Gold Coast Savings & Loan Ass'n) 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

Roland v. Gold Coast Savings & Loan Ass'n, 528 So. 2d 111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1648, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2961, 1988 WL 70688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We perceive the order here being appealed to be a partial summary judgment determining the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).

[112]*112At the time appellee s motion for summary judgment was granted, there had been no pleading in response to appellant’s affirmative defenses. Appellee had not shown that it was the holder of the note in its entire amount, nor that it had given the default notice required by a contractual provision. Thus there remained genuine issues of material fact.

Albeit the open issues may have been resolved subsequently, we reverse and remand. Summary judgment is determined on what is before the court at the time the order is rendered. A court should not decide the issue of liability on an inadequate record, while making grant of final judgment contingent on correcting the deficiency.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We perceive the order here being appealed to be a partial summary judgment determining the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).

[112]*112At the time appellee s motion for summary judgment was granted, there had been no pleading in response to appellant’s affirmative defenses. Appellee had not shown that it was the holder of the note in its entire amount, nor that it had given the default notice required by a contractual provision. Thus there remained genuine issues of material fact.

Albeit the open issues may have been resolved subsequently, we reverse and remand. Summary judgment is determined on what is before the court at the time the order is rendered. A court should not decide the issue of liability on an inadequate record, while making grant of final judgment contingent on correcting the deficiency.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 So. 2d 111, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1648, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2961, 1988 WL 70688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-v-gold-coast-savings-loan-assn-fladistctapp-1988.