ABDUL RASHID, APPELLANT,
v.
NEWBERRY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 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.
A mortgagee's voluntary dismissal after appellate reversal for failure to provide notice of default was error because it deprived the mortgagor of the benefit of the appellate mandate requiring dismissal of the foreclosure proceeding.
A mortgagee cannot obtain voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure action after appellate reversal on the merits, as doing so deprives the mortgagor of the benefit of the appellate mandate.
[1] A trial court errs in granting a mortgagee's voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure action after appellate reversal on the merits, as such dismissal deprives the mortgagor…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 entry of the order granting the mortgagee's voluntary dismissal was error because it deprived the successful mortgagor of the benefit and protection of our mandate.”
Court's explanation of why the trial court's order was reversible error.
In a prior appeal, this court reversed summary judgment for the mortgagee due to its failure to provide required notice of default before instituting …
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 Notice Of Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Rashid v. Newberry Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 502 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987),. we reversed a final summary judgment in favor of the mortgagee because of its failure to give the required notice of default to the mortgagor prior to the institution of the mortgage foreclosure proceeding. Implicit in our opinion was the requirement that upon remand the proceeding be dismissed. In an unpublished order of this court, which accompanied the opinion, the successful mortgagor was awarded appellate counsel fees as provided for by the underlying instrument. After our mandate was lodged in the lower court, the mortgagor filed a motion for summary judgment which we regard as the functional equivalent of a motion to enforce the mandate and dismiss the proceeding. That motion was met by the mortgagee’s motion for voluntary dismissal, which motion was heard and granted by the trial court. The motion to enforce the mandate was not determined by the trial court because it was apparently considered moot. The entry of the order granting the mortgagee’s voluntary dismissal was error because it deprived the successful mortgagor of the benefit and protection of our mandate. See Nazarro v. Moksel, 483 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nazzaro v. Dupont, 483 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Abdul Rashid v. Newberry Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 502 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)