O'Donovan v. Citibank, 710 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
O'Donovan v. Citibank, 710 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“whether the ... proffered proof of the note's essential terms was adequate for its reestablishment is a matter for determination by the trier of fact and should not be decided as a matter of law.”
7 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Deakter v. Menendez (fladistctapp, 2002-09-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Deakter v. Menendez
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
whether the ... proffered proof of the note's essential terms was adequate for its reestablishment is a matter for determination by the trier of fact and should not be decided as a matter of law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
O’Donovan v. Citibank FSB, 710 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Gutierrez v. Bermudez, 540 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). *1268 On remand, if the essential terms of the written agreement are established to the satisfaction of the trial court, it should be enforced against LeJeune in the same manner as against the other defendants.
discussed Cited "see" American Airlines, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Donovan v. Citibank, FSB, 710 So.2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that order of summary judgment will be affirmed where record is devoid of any genuine issue of material fact).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Nobles v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Watson v. State, 710 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Denise O'DONOVAN a/k/a Dennise O'Donovan, Appellant,
v.
CITIBANK, FSB f/k/a Citicorp Savings of Florida, a Federal Savings and Loan Association, Appellee.
97-2863.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 22, 1998.
710 So. 2d 654
Levy, Gersten and Green.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 73%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*655] Catlin, Saxon, Tuttle & Evans, P.A., and Michael A. Furshman, and William M. Tuttle, II, Miami, for appellant.

Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A., and Donna S. Glick, and Forrest G. McSurdy, Plantation, for appellee.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered in a two-count complaint for the foreclosure on a mortgage and reestablishment of the lost promissory note which was encumbered by the mortgage. We affirm the summary judgment as to the foreclosure action in count one where the record before us is devoid of any genuine issue of material fact for trial, see Carbonell v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 675 So.2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Gray v. Purchase Corporation, 573 So.2d 205, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and we direct the lower court to reset a sale date.

We do reverse, however, the entry of summary judgment as to count two for the reestablishment of the promissory note. Upon the commendable and appropriate confession of error of the appellee, summary judgment was improvidently entered on this count where the appellee was unable to supply a substantial copy of the lost promissory note to prove its essential terms as is generally required by section 71.011(5), Florida Statutes (1997).[1] Whether the appellee's proffered proof of the note's essential terms was adequate for its reestablishment is a matter for determination by the trier of fact and should not be decided as a matter of law. See Gutierrez v. Bermudez, 540 So.2d 888, 891 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). We therefore remand this count for trial.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

1 This section provides:

(5) COMPLAINT.—A person desiring to establish any paper, record or file, except when otherwise provided, shall file a complaint in chancery setting forth that the paper, record or file has been lost or destroyed and is not in the custody or control of the petitioner, the time and manner of loss or destruction, that a copy attached is a substantial copy of that lost or destroyed, that the persons named in the complaint are the only persons known to plaintiff who are interested for or against such reestablishment.