TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kerber v. Chadan, Inc.

Francis J. KERBER, J. Gregory Bartels, and Emil Miles, Trustees, and Mary Jane Durbin, Appellants-Cross v. CHADAN, INC., a Florida Corp., Farrell's Holiday by the Sea, Inc., a Florida Corp., and K. R. G. Realty, Inc., a Florida Corp., Appellees-Cross

Kerber v. Chadan, Inc., 364 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 13, 1978
Docket
No. 78-382
Judges
Beranek, Dauksch, Letts
Citations
364 So. 2d 12641978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16875

Opinion of the Court — Dauksch

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

In this mortgage foreclosure case the trial judge entered summary judgment for the mortgagors thereby sustaining their defense to the foreclosure.

The complaint sets out default by the mortgagors and otherwise alleges sufficient grounds for foreclosure. The defendants responded variously and ultimately set out a defense of equitable estoppel. There is a factual question to be resolved as to whether there was an equitable estoppel. For example, the defendants urge the plaintiffs, through one of the plaintiffs, agreed to an extension of time for payment of some ar-rearages. That plaintiff denies agreeing to *1265 the extension and the others say he was not speaking for them. Perhaps after trial the result will be the same but, as we have oft times said, if there are relevant factual issues remaining after full consideration of motions for summary judgment then the court cannot grant summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). See also Rinker Materials Corp. v. The Palmer First National Bank and Trust Company of Sarasota, 361 So.2d 156 (Fla.1978). The reversal of this summary judgment requires us to also reverse the cost judgment in favor of mortgagees.

REVERSED.

LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 11991: 119832026peak 1983 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parker v. Dinsmore Company443 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Duvall v. White & Nozzle Nolen, Inc.49 Fla. Supp. 2d 171 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Duvall v. White & Nozzle Nolen, Inc.49 Fla. Supp. 2d 171 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)
  2. Parker v. Dinsmore Company443 So. 2d 356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966) 809
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Palmer First NAT. Bank & Trust Co., 361 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1978) 47

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list