BLUEWATER, INC. AND ANTHONY S. WALKER
v.
CENTER STREET LENDING FUND IV SPE, 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 trial court does not abuse its discretion when ordering sequestration of rents under Florida Statute 697.07(4) without conclusively ruling on affirmative defenses such as usury.
[1] Under Florida Statute 697.07(4), a court may order sequestration of rents from mortgaged property notwithstanding any affirmative defenses or counterclaims asserted by th…
[2] In ruling on a motion to sequester rents, a court should refrain from conclusively determining the merits of affirmative defenses such as usury.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 statute allows sequestration of rents 'notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the mortgagor.'”
Court's explanation of the statutory authority for sequestration orders
Bluewater, Inc. and Anthony S. Walker appealed a trial court order requiring sequestration of rents in a mortgage dispute. The appellants apparently 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 Sequestration Of Rents cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John J. Murphy, III, and Michael L. Gates, Judges; L.T. Case Nos. CACE-15-016505 12 and CACE-16-005839 12.
Gary Barcus, Pembroke Pines, for appellants. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM.
We summarily affirm the trial court’s order requiring sequestration of rents under section 697.07(4), Florida Statutes (2018). The statute allows sequestration of rents ‘notwithstanding any asserted defenses or counterclaims of the mortgagor.’ Id. (emphasis supplied). “In ruling on a motion to sequester rents, a court should refrain from conclusively ruling on affirmative defenses.” Tidewater Estates Co-Op, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 83 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Usury is an affirmative defense. Cerrito v. Kovitch, 423 So. 2d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), approved, 457 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1984). The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed. GERBER, C.J., WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nolan v. The Boeing Co., 919 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1990)
-
Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. R.R. Land, Inc., 988 F.2d 1397 (5th Cir. 1993)
Authorities Cited
- Cerrito v. Kovitch, 457 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1984)
- Tidewater Ests. Co-Op, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n for the registered holders of MLCFC Commercial Mortg. Tr. 2006-1, 83 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Cerrito v. Kovitch, 423 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)