Washington Savings & Loan Ass'n of Florida v. Concepcion Del Portillo
Opinion
CORRECTED OPINION
Washington Savings and Loan Association of Florida appeals from a Summary Final Judgment enjoining them from enforcing a due-on-sale provision in a mortgage contract after the owner of the mortgaged property had sold or transferred the property without approval of the lender in violation of the contract terms.1 The trial [806]*806court held, consistent with the holding of earlier Florida and Minnesota cases,2 that absent some showing that transfer of the mortgaged property had impaired the lender’s security, appellant-savings and loan association would not be permitted to enforce the due-on-sale clause.
In a sweeping opinion which issued subsequent to the filing of briefs in this case, the United States Supreme Court held in Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association v. de la Cuesta, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982), that (1) the Federal Home Loan Bank Board’s due-on-sale regulation was meant to pre-empt conflicting state limitations on the due-on-sale practices of federal savings and loan associations,3 and (2) the applicable regulations do not confine a federal association’s right to accelerate a loan to cases where the lender’s security is impaired.4 De la Cuesta overrules the cases which hold that courts may, applying state equity law, refuse to enforce due-on-sale clauses in federal savings and loan association mortgage contracts, and is squarely dispositive of the narrow question presented by this appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
419 So. 2d 805 (Washington Savings & Loan Ass'n of Florida v. Concepcion Del Portillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.