Wootton v. Matheson
439 So. 2d 1007, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22755
Opinion
Under the circumstances of this case we find no abuse in the exercise of the equitable discretion of the trial judge in denying acceleration and foreclosure and attorney’s [1008] fees. Obviously the trial judge concluded that the security for the mortgage indebtedness had not been impaired or put in jeopardy and that acceleration and foreclosure would be unconscionable in this instance. See Brady v. Edgar, 415 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and Consol. Credit Properties v. National Bank, 420 So.2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wootton v. Matheson, 439 So. 2d 1007, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).
439 So. 2d 1007 (Wootton v. Matheson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brady v. Edgar
415 So. 2d 141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Consolidated Capital Properties, II, Ltd. v. National Bank of North America
420 So. 2d 618 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)