Schmidt Industries, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schmidt Industries, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida

529 So. 2d 373, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1934, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3678, 1981 WL 10251

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2017

StatusPublished

This text of 529 So. 2d 373 (Schmidt Industries, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida) 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

Schmidt Industries, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, 529 So. 2d 373, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1934, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3678, 1981 WL 10251 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Barnett Bank, filed a suit to foreclose its mortgage on property owned by Solic Properties, naming appellant, Schmidt Industries, a second mortgagee, as a defendant. Schmidt filed an answer containing affirmative defenses, a counterclaim, and other pleadings not pertinent here. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of appellee, holding that the record demonstrated no genuine issue of fact.

We disagree and reverse. The affirmative defenses raised by appellant, together with his deposition testimony, reflect an issue of fact regarding appellee’s alleged agreement not to make further advances on the first mortgage in excess of $173,000 without the consent of appellant. Should appellant be successful at trial in proving these defenses, it would make a substantial difference in the amount of the priority of the first mortgage.

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment appealed from and remand the cause for further proceedings.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Barnett Bank, filed a suit to foreclose its mortgage on property owned by Solic Properties, naming appellant, Schmidt Industries, a second mortgagee, as a defendant. Schmidt filed an answer containing affirmative defenses, a counterclaim, and other pleadings not pertinent here. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of appellee, holding that the record demonstrated no genuine issue of fact.

We disagree and reverse. The affirmative defenses raised by appellant, together with his deposition testimony, reflect an issue of fact regarding appellee’s alleged agreement not to make further advances on the first mortgage in excess of $173,000 without the consent of appellant. Should appellant be successful at trial in proving these defenses, it would make a substantial difference in the amount of the priority of the first mortgage.

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment appealed from and remand the cause for further proceedings.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 So. 2d 373, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1934, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3678, 1981 WL 10251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-industries-inc-v-barnett-bank-of-south-florida-fladistctapp-1988.