DANIEL WHITE
v.
PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC
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 mortgage provision incorporating federal Housing and Urban Development regulations by reference includes the mandatory face-to-face interview requirement as a condition precedent to foreclosure, which the plaintiff must satisfy or refute before obtaining summary judgment.
[1] A plaintiff seeking summary judgment of foreclosure must factually refute alleged affirmative defenses or establish their legal insufficiency.
[2] A mortgage provision limiting acceleration to "regulations of the Secretary ... …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Before a plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment of foreclosure, the plaintiff must either factually refute the alleged affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for summary judgment in foreclosure actions.
Daniel White defaulted on his mortgage with Planet Home Lending, LLC. The mortgage provided that acceleration of debt was limited by HUD regulations, …
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 Condition Precedent To Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DANIEL N. WHITE,
Appellant,
v.
PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC,
Appellee.
No. 4D16-4317
[January 10, 2018]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-16-005850.
Jonathan Kline of Jonathan Kline, P.A., Weston, for appellant. Robert C. Schermer of Greene Hamrick Quinlan & Schermer, P.A., Bradenton, for appellee.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR PER CURIAM. Appellant Daniel White appeals from a summary judgment of foreclosure to Appellee Planet Home Lending, LLC. Based on Appellee’s confession of error and our own review of the record, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Appellant’s mortgage provided that, in the event of a default, the debt could be accelerated, “except as limited by regulations of the Secretary . . . of Housing and Urban Development.” Appellant’s answer to Appellee’s foreclosure complaint denied that Appellee had performed all conditions precedent to bringing the foreclosure action. His affirmative defenses contended that Appellee failed to comply with federal housing regulations incorporated into the mortgage, including Appellant’s right to a “face-to-face” interview with the lender, “at least thirty days before foreclosure is commenced.” 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b) (2016). Appellant alleged in his affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment that he never attended a face-to-face interview.
2
“Before a plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment of foreclosure, the plaintiff must either factually refute the alleged affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)). Here, Appellant sufficiently pleaded his affirmative defense.
Appellee denied incorporation of the federal regulations in its summary judgment motion, but now confesses error in light of Palma v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 208 So. 3d 771, 773, 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (finding identical language in a mortgage had incorporated the federal regulations, including the face-to-face interview requirement, as a condition precedent to filing suit). Appellee further concedes that it failed to refute Appellant’s denial of an interview taking place.
Accordingly, entry of summary judgment was error. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 Reversed and Remanded. MAY, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richard Derouin & KIM Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 254 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Kuhnsman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 311 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
-
Mich. Mut. Liab. Co. v. Dade Cnty. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 23 Fla. Supp. 61 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1964)…316. The majority view is expressed in the following — State of Arizona v. Northwestern Mutual Ins. Co., 340 P. 2d 200; Lawrence v. Schellstede (Okla.), 348 P. 2d 1078; Miller v. Johnson (Cal.), 48 P. 2d 956; Burton v. School District No. 19 (Wyo.), 38 P. 2d 610; and Clifton v. School District No. 14 of Russellville (Ark.), 90 S.W. 2d 508. The court agrees that a policyholder in a mutual company is responsible for the full premium on a non-assessable policy purchased prior to the company’s failure — but th…
Authorities Cited
- Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco OIL Co., 660 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Dwon Kimble v. State, 15 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Palma v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 208 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Canda Alston v. Vazquez, 226 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Elna F. McIntosh and Christopher Hallman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)