AMERIFIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A UNITED STATES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF TRUST NO. 71-LT-100, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association appealed a partial summary judgment that voided enforcement of certain provisions in a court-approved settlement agreement between the parties to a mortgage foreclosure action. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding the settlement agreement's terms unconscionable when both parties were sophisticated business actors who fully understood and benefited from the balanced agreement.
The court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the settlement agreement's provisions were not unconscionable. The court determined that a balanced, arms-length settlement agreement entered into by sophisticated and knowledgeable business persons who fully understood the terms and received considerable benefits cannot be voided merely because one party made a substantial profit due to subsequent events.
[1] An order determining the right to immediate possession of property is an appealable non-final order.
[2] A court-approved settlement agreement entered into by sophisticated business persons in an arms-length transaction will not be deemed unconscionable solely because subseq…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The settlement agreement was entered into by sophisticated and knowledgeable business persons in an arms-length transaction in which both parties received considerable benefits. It was a balanced agreement which settled a lawsuit between the parties and was subsequently approved by court order. Both parties fully understood what they were agreeing to; there was no overreaching by anyone; and the terms of the agreement, without dispute, contained no unconscionable terms.”
Establishes the court's factual findings regarding the nature and enforceability of the settlement agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerifirst and Cohen (as trustee under a land agreement) were parties to a mortgage foreclosure action. They entered into a court-approved settlement …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Immediate Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order which enters a partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on one count of a five-count complaint, and orders the defendant in the action to deliver a certain mortgage and promissory note to the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff is “the rightful owner and proper holder of the note and mortgage in question.” We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because the subject order is an appealable non-final order under Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution, as implemented by Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). The order under review plainly “determine[s] ... [the] right to immediate possession of property,” Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), as to the above-stated mortgage and note, and is therefore appealable to this court. Fla. Const, art. V, § 4(b)(1); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).
The order appealed from voids the enforcement of certain provisions of a court-approved settlement agreement entered into by the parties to a mortgage foreclosure action. The parties to the prior foreclosure action and the parties to the instant action are the same, to wit: Ameri-first Savings and Loan Association (“Amer-ifirst”), the creditor, and Norman Cohen, as trustee under a land agreement (“Cohen”), the debtor. Subsequent to the settlement agreement herein, Cohen filed a five-count complaint against Amerifirst seeking in count I of the complaint to declare unenforceable certain provisions of the court-approved settlement agreement and to obtain possession of a mortgage and note held by Amerifirst pursuant to the above-stated provisions of the settlement agreement. The trial court granted the relief requested on the ground that it would be unconscionable to enforce these provisions of the settlement agreement. Amerifirst appeals.
The facts of this case are exceedingly complex and will not be reviewed in any detail in this opinion. Suffice it to say that the settlement agreement was entered into by sophisticated and knowledgeable business persons in an arms-length transaction in which both parties received considerable benefits. It was a balanced agreement which settled a lawsuit between the parties and was subsequently approved by court order. Both parties fully understood what they were agreeing to; there was no overreaching by anyone; and the terms of the agreement, without dispute, contained no unconscionable terms.
True, as events worked out subsequent to the agreement, Amerifirst now stands to make over four million dollars pursuant to the agreement, after the underlying indebtedness together with interest, attorney’s fees, and other costs have been paid. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, however, making a handsome profit on an agreement, due to events subsequent to the agreement, hardly renders the enforcement of the agreement unconscionable or the provisions in question a forfeiture. Cohen gained much from this agreement and cannot now be permitted to back out of those provisions of the agreement which he deems harsh or onerous. See Geldermann & Co. v. Lane Processing, Inc., 527 F. 2d 571, 576 (8th Cir.1975); Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884, 889-90 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983).
The order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Queen E. Harris v. P.S. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 558 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ubaugh, 636 F.Supp. 1569 (D.Kan.1986); Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 415 F.Supp. 264 (E.D.Mich.1976); Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983). But see Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Cohen, 454 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1985) (sophisticated parties coupled with comparable benefits and losses under the settlement). Second, we conclude that our prior dismissal of the defendant’s appeal from the mortgage foreclosu…
-
Malkus v. Gaines, 476 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ational Development Corp. v. Southeast Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc., 471 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin, 317 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Compare Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Cohen, 454 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There is no reason to hold that the provisions under the facts of the instant case are a penalty, particularly in light of the fact that Malkus knew the purpose for the provisions of paragraph 7 was to secure the warranties (whic…
-
Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d under the law, Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985), and ordinarily will not be set aside when, due to subsequent events, one party to the agreement stands to reap a handsome profit. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Cohen, 454 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 464 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1985). Where, however, a person settles a lawsuit and receives a recovery thereunder — and later is fully reimbursed for the alleged loss suffered, as here, said person has obviously received…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Lane Processing, Inc., 527 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1975)