Tidewater Estates Co-Op, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

83 So. 3d 912, 2012 WL 638029, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3259
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 29, 2012·No. No. 4D11-1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order sequestering rents. See Whud Real Estate Ltd. P’ship v. Oak Grove, Ltd., 699 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Lack of standing is an affirmative defense to foreclosure. See, e.g., Glynn v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 912 So.2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 697.07(4), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that a court may order sequestration of rents “notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the mortgagor.” In ruling on a motion to sequester rents, a court should refrain from conclusively ruling on affirmative defenses. See Whetstone P’ship v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 666 So.2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

Tidewater Estates Co-Op, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 83 So. 3d 912, 2012 WL 638029, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3259 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

83 So. 3d 912 (Tidewater Estates Co-Op, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SEASPRAY RESORT LTD. v. UCF 1 TRUST 1
260 So. 3d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Bluewater, Inc. v. Ctr. St. Lending Fund IV Spe, LLC
257 So. 3d 1092 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)