ROSEMARIE KLEBER AND ESTHER C. KLEBER, APPELLANTS,
v.
BISCAYNE 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.
Kleber appealed a summary judgment of foreclosure on a mortgage securing Lot 14 and a ten-foot strip of Lot 13 in a residential development. The defendants argued that foreclosure would result in illegal subdivision under Dade County code, but the trial court rejected this affirmative defense as lacking legal merit, and the appellate court affirmed.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment for the lender because the defendants' affirmative defense based on alleged violations of subdivision regulations was not well taken and was without legal merit. The appellate court affirmed, finding no material issues of fact precluded summary judgment.
[1] A mortgage encumbering a portion of one lot and the entirety of an adjacent lot does not, by itself, constitute an illegal subdivision in violation of municipal code prov…
[2] A trial court may grant summary judgment of foreclosure when no issues of material fact are raised by the defendants and their affirmative defenses lack legal merit.
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 intelligence“Defendants ESTHER C. KLEBER and ROSEMARIE KLEBER, argued that if the mortgage which is the subject matter of this foreclosure action resulted in a judgment and public sale, an illegal subdividing would result as to Lot 13 of Block .3, of OMNI ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, thereby violating Chapter 28 of the Dade County Municipal Code governing subdivisions and plats.”
Sets forth the defendants' primary affirmative defense based on alleged subdivision code violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mortgage at issue encumbered Lot 14, Block 3 of Omni Estates Second Addition and a ten-foot strip of Lot 13, Block 3 of the same subdivision. When…
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 Affirmative Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment of foreclosure. The trial judge has fully set forth the circumstances and his decision thereon in the following excerpt from the final judgment:
“At the hearing on the 27th day of January, 1977, Defendants, ESTHER C. KLEBER and ROSEMARIE KLEBER, argued that if the mortgage which is the subject matter of this foreclosure action resulted in a judgment and public sale, an illegal subdividing would result as to Lot 13 of Block .3, of OMNI ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, thereby violating Chapter 28 of the Dade County Municipal Code governing subdivisions and plats. Subject mortgage encumbers not only Lot 14, Block 3, of OMNI ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, but also a ten-foot strip of Lot 13 of Block 3 of OMNI ESTATES SECOND ADDITION, said strip being adjacent to the dividing lot line. It was conceded by both counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants KLEBER at that hearing that when subject mortgage was executed and placed of record, Defendants W. P. UHLER and ANGELIA UHLER, his wife, were the titleholders to both Lots 13 and 14, and that subsequently, Lot 13 was conveyed by the UHLERS to Defendants, ESTHER C. KLEBER and ROSEMARIE KLEBER. No issues of material fact were raised by counsel and no affidavits were filed in this cause by any Defendants controverting the affidavit filed by Plaintiff. Furthermore, no facts were proffered at the hearing which would constitute a material issue of fact. After reviewing the applicability of Chapter 28 of the Dade County Municipal Code, this Court is of the opinion that the Affirmative Defenses raised by said ESTHER C. KLEBER and ROSEMARIE KLEBER are not well taken and are without legal merit.”
We affirm. See Garvin v. Baker, 59 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1952); and Kass v. Lewin, 104 So. 2d 572 (Fla.1958).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kass v. Lewin, 104 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1958)
- Garvin v. Baker, 59 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1952)