Foreclosure Defense Florida


Appellants Jeffrey and Taunya Foerster, defendants below, appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Appellee Regent Bank.We reverse the summary judgment because there remains a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether appellee complied with thecondition precedent contained in the mortgage to provide pre-suit notice of acceleration. See Finnegan v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 96 So. 3d1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing summary judgment as letters sent to appellant were not properly considered on motion for summary    judgment and bank’s affidavit did not address compliance with pre-suit requirements.)

One Comment

  • Learning2 says:

    I found the last paragraph of great interest and very specific.
    “…” Merely attaching documents which are not “˜sworn to or certified’ to a motion for summary judgment does not, without more, satisfy the procedural strictures inherent in Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e).” Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So.2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The affidavit filed by the bank did not address the issue of compliance with the notice provisions of the mortgage. Therefore, an issue of fact remains as to whether the bank fulfilled the condition precedent to foreclose the mortgage.
    Because a material issue of fact remains, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.”

Leave a Reply