HOLLY DOUGLAS AND ROBERT DOUGLAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY, ETC., 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 while foreclosure was proper, a dispute regarding the amount due, specifically concerning unnecessary insurance premiums, requires further consideration by the trial court.
The Douglases appealed a summary final judgment of foreclosure, arguing the bank obtained judgment before their motion to dismiss was heard. They also…
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 Equitable Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The Douglases appeal from a summary final judgment of foreclosure. They argue that Deutsche Bank Trust Co. was imper-missibly allowed to move for and obtain summary judgment on its amended foreclosure complaint before their motion to dismiss was heard and prior to the filing of an answer. Deutsche Bank could move for summary judgment prior to the Douglases filing an answer, but the Bank had the burden of conclusively establishing that no answer which the Douglases might have served could present a genuine issue of material fact. Greene v. Lifestyle Builders of Orlando, Inc., 985 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Valhalla, Inc. v. Carbo, 487 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick’s Florida Practice and Procedure, § 25:6 (2007-08 ed.).
While we find no viable defense to foreclosure, we conclude a viable defense to the amount recoverable by the Bank exists and requires consideration by the trial court. The Douglases claim that the lender placed in force additional, unnecessary insurance on the property, the premiums for which the Bank recovered from the Douglases in the summary final judgment of foreclosure. Foreclosure is an equitable remedy. Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004, 1008 (Fla.2004). If dupli-cative, unnecessary insurance was placed on the property by the lender, the Doug-lases would be entitled to a reduction in the insurance premium claimed due by Deutsche Bank which in this case totaled $4,534.93. This issue must be considered by the trial court.
While foreclosure was proper, the actual amount due to Deutsche Bank was in dispute. The summary final judgment of foreclosure is reversed for consideration of the issue of the amount due Deutsche Bank and for entry of an amended foreclosure order. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper v. Boca Landings HOA (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)…e the record establishes that the documents submitted to establish the amount the Coopers owed were in conflict, the case is remanded for the trial court to determine the amount the Coopers owe Boca Landings. See Douglas v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 995 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing summary judgment because although foreclosure was proper, the actual amount owed was in dispute). We also find that the trial court erred by awarding Boca Landings attorney's fees without holding an evidentiary hearin…
Authorities Cited
- Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004)
- Valhalla, Inc. v. Carbo, 487 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Greene v. Lifestyle Builders OF Orlando, Inc., 985 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)