Syfrett v. Amsouth Bank of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Syfrett v. Amsouth Bank of Florida

588 So. 2d 46, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10737, 1991 WL 216504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1991

DocketNo. 91-382

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 588 So. 2d 46 (Syfrett v. Amsouth Bank of 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

Syfrett v. Amsouth Bank of Florida, 588 So. 2d 46, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10737, 1991 WL 216504 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the second amended summary final judgment entered by the circuit court. The bank did not infringe upon any rights of appellant by first obtaining a money judgment against appellant based upon a personal guaranty, and then proceeding to foreclose a security interest in real estate owned by appellant, based upon the same underlying debt. Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Since appellee, at oral argument, appeared to be largely concerned with the state of the public record, we approve the suggestion made at oral argument and concurred in by counsel for both sides that the judgment be remanded to the circuit court for entry of a notation that the debt involved in the foreclosure action of Count I is the same as the debt underlying the earlier money judgment against Mr. Syfrett in circuit court case no. 89-3627. This action is based entirely upon the agreement of counsel at oral argument, and is not intended to impose a new procedural requirement upon creditors who, while holding an unsatisfied money judgment, seek and obtain a foreclosure.

BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the second amended summary final judgment entered by the circuit court. The bank did not infringe upon any rights of appellant by first obtaining a money judgment against appellant based upon a personal guaranty, and then proceeding to foreclose a security interest in real estate owned by appellant, based upon the same underlying debt. Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Since appellee, at oral argument, appeared to be largely concerned with the state of the public record, we approve the suggestion made at oral argument and concurred in by counsel for both sides that the judgment be remanded to the circuit court for entry of a notation that the debt involved in the foreclosure action of Count I is the same as the debt underlying the earlier money judgment against Mr. Syfrett in circuit court case no. 89-3627. This action is based entirely upon the agreement of counsel at oral argument, and is not intended to impose a new procedural requirement upon creditors who, while holding an unsatisfied money judgment, seek and obtain a foreclosure.

BOOTH, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 So. 2d 46, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10737, 1991 WL 216504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/syfrett-v-amsouth-bank-of-florida-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack