FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF WINTER HAVEN
v.
SIEGEL
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 a mortgage foreclosure action, even if labeled a declaratory judgment, does not present a federal question and is therefore outside the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a complaint labeled 'Complaint for Declaratory Judgment' seeking interpretation of federal law regarding mortgage foreclosure. The cou…
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 Due On Sale Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
KRENTZMAN, Chief Judge.
The Court has for consideration defendants’ motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*563
As defendants suggest, the remedies sought by plaintiff indicate that this is a “plain vanilla” nondiversity suit for foreclosure of a mortgage. While the complaint is entitled “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” and seeks to allege a case or controversy as to interpretation and application of the laws of the United States of America, over which this Court might have jurisdiction, it is clear that there is no controversy as to either. As suggested in
Florida Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n. v. Bauer,
515 F.Supp. 869 (M.D.Fla.1981) and the well-reasoned opinion in
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n. of Englewood v. Lockwood,
385 So. 2d 156 (2d DCA Fla.1980), the controversy is not over the interpretation of or application of any law or regulation or any question of preemption of federal law but the simple question as to whether a state court has authority to withhold the remedy of enforcement in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. Obviously it does. If those seeking to
enforce
foreclosure mortgages for breach of “due on sale” clauses think otherwise, they may appeal adverse state decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States if necessary. Significantly, there was no appeal from the decision in
Englewood, supra.
Thus, the label “complaint for declaratory judgment” does not make “two cents” worth of difference and this remains “[for] [without] two cents [difference]” a “plain vanilla” mortgage foreclosure over which the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. The motion is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to DISMISS this suit with prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Englewood v. Lockwood, 385 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Fla. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Bauer, 515 F. Supp. 869 (M.D. Fla. 1981)