HABERL v. 21st MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Fla 5DCA | affidavit in support of 21st Mortgage's motion for summary judgment does not comply with the pre-acceleration notice requirements set forth in paragraph 22 of the mortgage

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

HABERL v. 21st MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Fla 5DCA | affidavit in support of 21st Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment does not comply with the pre-acceleration notice requirements set forth in paragraph 22 of the mortgage

HABERL v. 21st MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Fla 5DCA | affidavit in support of 21st Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment does not comply with the pre-acceleration notice requirements set forth in paragraph 22 of the mortgage

 

JOANN HABERL, Appellant,
v.
21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellee.

Case No. 5D12-4839.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed May 23, 2014.
Carl J. Hognefelt and Barry M. Elkin, of Elkin & Hognefelt, Tampa, for Appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, and Sonya Daws, of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joann Haberl appeals a summary final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of 21st Mortgage Corporation. Because the notice of default attached to the affidavit in support of 21st Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment does not comply with the pre-acceleration notice requirements set forth in paragraph 22 of the mortgage,[1] we reverse the summary final judgment of foreclosure and remand for further proceedings. See Samaroo v. Wells Fargo Bank, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D670 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 28, 2014) (summary final judgment of foreclosure reversed where default letter that mortgagee sent to mortgagors failed to satisfy the pre-acceleration notice requirement of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TORPY, C.J., EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

[1] The notice of default failed to inform Haberl of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding the non-existence of a default or other defense of borrower to acceleration and foreclosure.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8609 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives