Sils v. Steinman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sils v. Steinman

471 So. 2d 194, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1515, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1985

DocketNo. 85-359

StatusPublished

This text of 471 So. 2d 194 (Sils v. Steinman) 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

Sils v. Steinman, 471 So. 2d 194, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1515, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14643 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Steinman sued to foreclose a second mortgage on the Sils’s property. They raised defenses, among others, of usury and non-compliance with the Truth in Lending Act. Prior to the trial, the lower court ordered the defendants to pay into the registry the amounts due on the first mortgage—which was not involved in the lawsuit but which the plaintiff had apparently been paying. When the defendants, in violation of the order, did not make the payments, a default was entered against them. The order of default and the consequent final judgment of foreclosure are reversed because, as the court said in Law v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 452 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), there is utterly “no legal justification in this case to require the mortgagor to make mortgage payments into the registry of the court pendente lite.” 452 So.2d at 1120. Indeed, since Law involved a requirement for the payment of the mortgage actually in issue, it presents an a fortiori situation to this case, which does not.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Steinman sued to foreclose a second mortgage on the Sils’s property. They raised defenses, among others, of usury and non-compliance with the Truth in Lending Act. Prior to the trial, the lower court ordered the defendants to pay into the registry the amounts due on the first mortgage—which was not involved in the lawsuit but which the plaintiff had apparently been paying. When the defendants, in violation of the order, did not make the payments, a default was entered against them. The order of default and the consequent final judgment of foreclosure are reversed because, as the court said in Law v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 452 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), there is utterly “no legal justification in this case to require the mortgagor to make mortgage payments into the registry of the court pendente lite.” 452 So.2d at 1120. Indeed, since Law involved a requirement for the payment of the mortgage actually in issue, it presents an a fortiori situation to this case, which does not.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 194, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1515, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sils-v-steinman-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack