LOCKE v. ST. FARM FIRE AND CAS. CO. No. BO-255.
509 So.2d 1375 (1987)
Cecil E. LOCKE and His Wife, Mildred M. Locke, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 23, 1987.
Jack G. Williams, Panama City, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the appellee/mortgagee in a foreclosure suit. The appellants/mortgagors also appeal an earlier order denying their motion to dismiss.
Appellee's foreclosure complaint alleged that appellants defaulted on the note and mortgage by failing to pay the same according to the terms thereof, that appellants owe principal and interest from October 28, 1980, and that "plaintiff declares the full amount payable." The complaint was filed January 10, 1986.
Appellants filed a motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations. The motion was denied. Appellants then filed an answer generally denying most of the allegations and pleading the following affirmative defenses: 1) estoppel; 2) laches; 3) res judicata; 4) statute of limitations; and 5) waiver. Appellee filed no responsive pleading. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, an affidavit in proof of amount due, and an affidavit as to attorney's fees. The motion was granted after hearing. This appeal followed.
Appellee has filed herein a "Confession of Error" in which appellee admits error "in that certain procedural requirements including the awarding of attorney's fees were in error." From the briefs and record herein, it is apparent that such errors include an error in the judgment's legal description of the property, a variance between the amount due according to the plaintiff's affidavits and the amount provided in the judgment, and error in the procedure followed in the awarding of plaintiff's attorney's fees.
In addition to the above errors admitted by appellee, we reverse the order granting summary judgment because we agree with appellants that the motion for summary judgment did not meet the minimum requirements of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510, which provides in pertinent part:
Appellants also appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had run on the instant action. They argue that since five years had run from the time of default to the filing of the action, Section 95.11(2)(c), Florida Statutes, prohibits the current action. It has been held that the statute of limitations on a mortgage foreclosure action does not begin to run until the last payment is due unless the mortgage contains an acceleration clause. Conner v. Coggins,
In view of appellee's admissions of error and our holdings herein, we need not discuss appellants' other points. The summary judgment is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
- No Cases Found