JOSEPH E. HUGHES, JR. AND DEBRA HUGHES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in requiring the mortgagors to deposit future mortgage payments into the court registry pending foreclosure proceedings.
[1] An order requiring a mortgagor to deposit accruing mortgage payments into the registry of the court during foreclosure proceedings is reviewable as an order granting an i…
[2] A trial court is not authorized to require a mortgagor to deposit payments due on the mortgage into the court registry absent specific statutory or rule-based authority.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sued to foreclose a mortgage, alleging delinquency. Appellants sought rescission and debt offset under federal law. The trial court ordered a…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge.
This case presents an appeal from a non final order in a mortgage foreclosure pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order in question requires appellants to deposit mortgage payments into the registry of the court as they accrue and is reviewable as an order granting an injunction. CMR Distributors, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 593 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Appellee sued to foreclose its mortgage on appellants’ property alleging that appellants were delinquent since June 1992. By way of answer and affirmative defenses appellants sought rescission of the mortgage transaction under The Truth In Lending Act, 15 United States Code section 1635 and debt offset under 15 Unitéd States Code section 1640 for material disclosure errors. Appellee’s motion to strike appellants’ affirmative defenses remains pending. At this stage of the proceeding appel-lee filed a motion to require appellants to deposit the monthly mortgage payments into the registry of the court. Prom an order granting that motion appellants perfected this appeal.
We find no reason presented by the appellate papers to deviate from the long standing rule announced in Felty v. State, Department of Environment Regulation, 601 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Law v. NCNB National Bank, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Deposits in the court registry are controlled generally by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600. Nothing contained herein would authorize the trial court to require deposit of payments due on the mortgage in controversy into the court registry and no other pertinent authority therefore has been cited. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed.
Each of the parties requests an award of costs and attorney’s fees for this appellate proceeding. Appellee’s motion therefore is denied and appellants’ motion is granted contingent upon appellants’ being the ultimate prevailing party in the trial court.
HERSEY and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morroni v. Fisher, 647 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rtgagor to deposit monthly payments into the registry of the court persuasive. Nothing in rule 1.600 authorizes a trial court to require a mortgagor to deposit mortgage payments into the court’s registry. Hughes v. First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 621 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Law v. NCNB Nat. Bank of Florida, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).2 We likewise find no authority for the court to order the Morronis to deposit the fair rental value here. The lower court’s order was a departure from the es…
-
Dalia Minalla v. Equinamics Corp., 954 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ying motion for default and writ of possession appealable under Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) as an order determining the right to immediate possession of property); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(a)(3)(B); Hughes v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 621 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(order requiring payment into court registry is injunctive in nature). . In her amended complaint, Minalla alleges in Count I that this hybrid transaction — -which she nicknames a SLO for "sale, lease, option” — is a close-ended…
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Tadmore, 23 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ominium unit in foreclosure. We treat the instant order as an order granting an injunction which we reverse because there is no basis for imposing such fees as a sanction or otherwise in this case. See, e.g., Hughes v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 621 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that an order requiring a party to deposit mortgage payments into the registry of the court as they accrued, pending resolution of the foreclosure claim, was reviewable as an injunction under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B)). This…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- CMR Distribs., Inc. v. The Resolution Tr. Corp. for Prof'l Fed. Sav. Bank, 593 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Suggs v. State, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Mary L. LAW v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Felty v. State, 601 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)