CopyCited 35 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 76, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 77, 2000 WL 124388
...Townes of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., Orlando, Florida, for Florida Bankers Association, Amicus Curiae. HARDING, Chief Justice. We have on appeal Tuttle's Design-Build, Inc. v. Caple,
712 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), wherein the Third District Court of Appeal declared section
702.10(2), Florida Statutes (1997), unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions....
...vidually. See id. Tuttle subsequently defaulted on one of the notes to Caple Enterprises and the note to Caple after paying more than $10,000,000 on the notes. See id. Caple filed a foreclosure action and requested an order to show cause pursuant to section 702.10(2), which allows a commercial mortgagee to request a court order requiring the mortgagor to continue payments pending litigation, post bond, or relinquish possession of the property....
...and monthly interest payments thereafter. See id. The order provided Tuttle the alternative of posting a bond in the amount of $6,865,572, the unpaid mortgage principal and interest. [2] See id. On appeal, Tuttle challenged the constitutionality of section 702.10(2) on two grounds: (1) it does not provide adequate due process safeguards to the mortgagor; and (2) it impermissibly conflicts with the Supreme Court's rulemaking authority....
...Relying on this Court's opinion in Gazil, Inc. v. Super Food Services, Inc.,
356 So.2d 312 (Fla.1978), Tuttle asserts that the statute's failure to require a creditor's bond violates due process and thus renders it unconstitutional. Additionally, Tuttle argues that section
702.10(2) conflicts with (1) Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) by failing to require a creditor's bond even though it authorizes what is essentially a temporary injunction, and (2) Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 9.310 by requiring a mortgagor's bond that greatly exceeds the supersedeas bond provided by the rule. Thus, Tuttle reasons, section
702.10(2) encroaches upon this Court's rulemaking authority....
...te constitutions as well as with the legislative intent." State v. Stalder,
630 So.2d 1072, 1076 (Fla.1994)(quoting State v. Elder,
382 So.2d 687, 690 (Fla.1980)). Due Process Beginning with this presumption of validity, our next step is to consider section
702.10(2) in light of the due process requirements of the United States and Florida Constitutions....
...t was merely one of the factors considered by this Court. Because the protections provided by the statute sufficiently balanced the parties' interests, the Court found the statute to be constitutional. Likewise, when viewed under this totality test, section 702.10(2) adequately *53 protects the parties' due process rights in that: (1) the mortgagee is required to serve a copy of the order to show cause on the mortgagor in a prescribed and protective manner; [6] (2) the mortgagor has the right to...
...Doral Home Owners, Inc.,
661 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In fact, both parties in this case agreed that had Tuttle made such a request, Caple would have willingly agreed to the arrangement. Infringement on this Court's Rulemaking Authority Tuttle argues that section
702.10(2) impinges on this Court's rulemaking authority under article V, section 2, Florida Constitution....
...See also Benyard v. Wainwright,
322 So.2d 473, 475 (Fla.1975) (stating that "[s]ubstantive law prescribes the duties and rights under our system of government," while "[p]rocedural law concerns the means and method to apply and enforce those duties and rights"). Section
702.10(2) was designed to protect the property rights of commercial creditors and debtors during litigated foreclosure proceedings. Before the enactment of section
702.10(2), a mortgagee did not have the right to receive mortgage payments or to protect the value of the security for that payment prior to the entry of a final judgment, a process that was often time-consuming and replete with delays....
...lender to reacquire the collateral in a timely manner and because of the costs associated with the delay. Fla. H.R. Comm. on Judiciary, CS/HB 1159 (1993) Staff Analysis 13 (final Apr. 19, 1993)(on file with comm.). Therefore, we are of the view that section 702.10(2) creates substantive rights and any procedural provisions contained therein are intimately related to the definition of those substantive rights....
...See also VanBibber (holding that statute that prohibited joinder of insurers was within the Legislature's power to regulate insurance industry, though it affected joinder of parties in courts). Conclusion Based on the strong presumption of statutory validity and the Mitchell totality test, we hold that section 702.10(2) comports *55 with due process and adequately protects the interests of each party. Additionally, because the statute creates substantive rights and any procedural provisions are directly related to the definition of those rights, we hold that section 702.10(2) does not infringe on this Court's rulemaking authority....
...default on his payments; (4) the plaintiff must post a bond to protect the debtor from mistaken repossession; and (5) the debtor must be entitled to an immediate hearing on the issue of possession. Gazil,
356 So.2d at 313 (footnote omitted). [6] See §
702.10(2)(a)(5); cf....
...at 619,
94 S.Ct. 1895 (upholding statute allowing prejudgment seizure of property without notice and opportunity to appear as long as the statute otherwise adequately protects the parties' due process rights). Therefore, the predeprivation notice provided in section
702.10(2) is more protective of the parties' due process rights than that required by the U.S. Supreme Court. [7] See §
702.10(2)(a)(3); cf. Mitchell,
416 U.S. at 619,
94 S.Ct. 1895. [8] See §
702.10(2)(d); cf....
...1895 (holding that judicial control of the procedure, as evidenced by the fact that only a judge has authority to issue the writ, and only upon a showing of the nature and amount of the claim from specific facts shown by a verified petition or affidavit, protects due process). [9] See § 702.10(2)(d); cf....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2008 WL 878488
...while procedural, does not infringe on our rulemaking authority. See, e.g., Caple,
753 So.2d at 55 ("[B]ecause the statute creates substantive rights and any procedural provisions are directly related to the definition of those rights, we hold that section
702.10(2) does not infringe on this Court's rulemaking authority."); Smith,
507 So.2d at 1092 ("We find that all these sections are directly related to the substantive statutory scheme and conclude that these provisions do not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution.")....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 4158855
...int. Vincent, however, did not defend
the foreclosure action in any respect.
The following day, August 11, 2015, Nationstar filed a motion for an order
to show cause to be issued for the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure pursuant
to section 702.10(1), Florida Statutes (2015), which sets forth a procedure to
1 Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the denial of the motion for an
evidentiary hearing on prior motion to vacate pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(1) without
further discu...
...were premised not
on a violation of Nationstar’s rights, but rather upon alleged violations of the
defendants’ rights. For example, Nationstar argued that the trial court lacked
authority to enter the final judgment of foreclosure pursuant to section 702.10
because an answer and affirmative defenses had been filed, and that the
defendants’ (as opposed to Nationstar’s) due process rights were denied because
the final judgment of foreclosure was entered prior to the scheduled October 7th
hearing on the order to show cause....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 454781
...perty of appellees, Charles E. Camp and Glenda L. Camp, which was the subject of an agreement for deed between the parties. The Whitehursts argue that the trial court erred in not utilizing the so-called "fast track" procedure for foreclosures under section
702.10, Florida Statutes (1995), in setting post-judgment interest at 8 percent per annum, as determined pursuant to subsection
55.03(1), Florida Statutes (1995), rather than the 10 percent interest rate set forth in the agreement for deed, and in assessing less than the full amount of requested fees and costs....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2188342
...ude impermissibly upon the procedural practice of the courts, the legislative provisions would have to give way to the court rules and procedures." Id. As a further example, in Caple,
753 So.2d 49, the supreme court reviewed the constitutionality of section
702.10(2), Florida Statutes (1997), which created a substantive right allowing a commercial mortgagor to petition for previously nonexistent remedies, e.g., a stay of an order to continue mortgage payments, by posting a bond....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 832784, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4098
...termine that the declaration provided for in section
92.525(2) that the facts “are true,” without qualification, controlled. Muss was decided before the amendment to rule 1.110(b). Further, Muss involved an expedited foreclosure proceeding under section
702.10, Florida Statutes (1993).
673 So.2d at 85 . Section
702.10(1), Florida Statutes (2010), requires, among other things, that the complaint be verified to allow the expedited procedure. Section
702.10 does not specify the language required for verification....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...rior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice. Id. Florida law provides a party seeking to foreclose on a mortgage may move for an order to show cause why a final judgment of foreclosure should not be entered. Fla. Stat. § 702.10 (1). If certain conditions are met, the judge must issue the order, which must set the date and time for a show-cause hearing. Id. § 702.10(l)(a)(l). The show-cause procedure established under § 702.10 is intended to provide an expedited process for the resolution of mortgage-foreclosure cases that are not materially defended....
...Finally, the Maduras’ contention the judge deprived them of due process by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before entering the final judgment of foreclosure is unavailing. The Maduras’ contention they were entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
702.10 (1) is inaccurate, because BOA did not move for an order to show cause in this case, and §
702.10 procedures do not appear to apply. See Fla. Stat. §
702.10 (1)(a)(1); cf. BarrNunn, LLC,
106 So.3d at 53 (stating §
702.10 establishes an expedited procedure for a certain subset of foreclosure cases)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1611, 2013 WL 376366
KHOUZAM, Judge. BarrNunn, LLC, appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Talmer Bank and Trust. Because the trial court entered final judgment without complying with section 702.10(1), Florida Statutes (2011), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The facts are undisputed. On August 15, 2011, Talmer filed a complaint against BarrNunn and others seeking to foreclose on a mortgage. On the same day, Talmer filed a motion pursuant to section 702.10(1) requesting that the trial court enter an order to show cause why a final judgment of foreclosure should not be entered....
...count[.] BarrNunn timely appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by entering final judgment after the show cause hearing where the defendants had timely filed a motion to dismiss. There are no Florida cases that interpret the current version of section 702.10(1) as applied to the issue presented here....
...e v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,
377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979), “the absence of a transcript does not preclude reversal where an error of law is apparent on the face of the judgment,” Chirino v. Chirino,
710 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Section
702.10(1) provides that a mortgagee in a foreclosure proceeding *53 may move the court for an order to show cause for the entry of final judgment....
...he complaint is verified and alleges a cause of action to foreclose on real property. Id. The order to show cause must set a date and time for a hearing on the matter, which shall be held no later than 60 days after the date of service of the order. § 702.10(l)(a)(l). The order must also “[s]tate that, if the defendant files defenses by a motion, the hearing time may be used to hear the defendant’s motion.” § 702.10(l)(a)(5). Section 702.10(1) continues: (b) The right to be heard at the hearing to show cause is waived if the defendant, after being served as provided by law with an order to show cause,' engages in conduct that clearly shows that the defendant has relinquished the right to be heard on that order....
...to show cause, the court shall then determine whether there is cause not to enter a final judgment of foreclosure. If the court finds that the defendant has not shown cause, the court shall promptly enter a judgment of foreclosure. (Emphases added.) Section 702.10(1) thus contemplates a procedure to expedite the portion of mortgage foreclosure cases that are not materially defended....
...hown, obtaining a final judgment as a result of the hearing. But where cause is shown, the court is without authority to enter final judgment. The plain language of the statute indicates that a trial court conducting a show cause hearing pursuant to section 702.10(1) is required to engage in a two-part analysis....
...Plaza Materials Corp.,
908 So.2d 360, 366 (Fla.2005). 1 Consequently, we must reverse the final judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . We also note that even without reference to section
702.10, it was error to enter final judgment upon the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16607, 2015 WL 6738922
...appeal from, as Marrero recognized, a non-final order. The non-final order in this
foreclosure action directs Andros to make monthly payments in the amount of
$15,333.33 to the plaintiff, Orlando Benitez, Jr. The order further provides that
pursuant to section 702.10(2)(f), Florida Statutes, and We Help Community
Development Corp....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...US BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.
Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.
November 28, 2018
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. § 702.10, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
Per Curiam. AFFIRMED. § 702.10, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
LOBREE, J.
We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute
this opinion in its stead.
78D Team, LLC (the “Subsequent Purchaser”) appeals from a payment order
entered pursuant to section 702.10(2), Florida Statutes (2018), in foreclosure
proceedings in favor of U.S. Bank (the “Mortgagee”). The Subsequent Purchaser
challenges the lower court’s purported retroactive and unconstitutional application
of section 702.10(2) to proceedings involving a 2004 mortgage, as well as the
sufficiency of the lost-note affidavit and allegedly fraudulent assignment....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.
...Parties appear to have engaged in extensive discovery, and all of the parties’ claims and defenses are state-based claims. None of the claims or defenses involved the Bankruptcy Code. And prior to the removal on December 31, 2015, the trial court had scheduled an Order to Show Cause pursuant to § 702.10(2), Florida Statutes for January 25, 2016....
...The Commercial Foreclosure Action involves purely state law claims and the Debtor acknowledges that this is a non-core proceeding in his notice of removal. (D.E.l). 10. The Commercial Foreclosure Action was commenced in state court and proceeded to the verge of a hearing on an Order to Show Cause pursuant to § 702.10(2), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 874570, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4215
...We deny the instant petition for writ of certiorari without prejudice to Petitioner's right, should Petitioner so choose, to pursue an amendment to the trial court's December 8, 2011 order, to the extent that the order improperly required Petitioner to make its first payment only eight days after service of the order. See § 702.10(2)(e), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3515, 2011 WL 904580
...FACTUAL HISTORY In August 2007, the Bank loaned Farah $8,768,000.00. To secure repayment of the loan, Farah executed a mortgage encumbering three commercial properties in Miami-Dade County. The Bank subsequently filed an action seeking to foreclose the mortgage and, pursuant to section 702.10(2), Florida Statutes (2010), the trial court entered an order requiring Farah to make monthly payments in the amount of $61,180.91 to the Bank during the pendency of the litigation....
...Approximately four months later, in December 2007, the Bank loaned Farah another $1,105,000.00. To secure repayment of the loan, Farah executed a second mortgage encumbering different commercial property in Miami-Dade County. The Bank subsequently filed an action seeking to foreclose the mortgage and, pursuant to section 702.10(2), on September 15, 2010, the trial court entered an order requiring Farah to make monthly payments in the amount of $10,479.00 to the Bank during the pendency of the litigation....
...“the mortgagee may request that the court enter an order directing the mortgagor defendant to show cause why an order to make payments during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings or an order to vacate the premises should not be entered.” § 702.10(2). Specifically, section 702.10(2)(d) provides as follows: [T]he court shall, at the hearing on the order to show cause, consider the affidavits and other showings made by the parties appearing and make a determination of the probable validity of the underlying claim alleged against the mortgagor and the mortgagor’s defenses....
...yments and some have stopped making payments altogether[,] therefore(,] my client as a result of the filing doesn’t even have the cash flow to service the mortgage. Farah, however, may avoid enforcement of the Orders by posting a surety bond. See. § 702.10(2)(d), Fla....
...ders.” . "Certiorari review is appropriate where the underlying order departs from the essential requirements of the law, resulting in a material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal.” Sorena v. Tobin,
47 So.3d 875, 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). .Section
702.10(2)(e) provides: "In the event the court enters an order requiring the mortgagor to make payments to the mortgagee, payments shall be payable at such intervals and in such amounts provided for in the *210 mortgage instrument before acceleration or maturity...." . Section
702.10(2)(f) provides: "In the event the court enters an order requiring payments the order shall also provide that the mortgagee shall be entitled to possession of the premises upon the failure of the mortgagor to make the payment required i...
...videntiary hearing). These cases are inapposite where the Legislature has expressly abrogated a borrower’s right to possession of mortgaged property during the pendency of a foreclosure suit, provided the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. See § 702.10(2)(d), (f), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8523, 2017 WL 2491627
... MDTR LLC (“MDTR”) appeals the trial court’s entry of final judgment of foreclosure
in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Bank”). MDTR argues that the trial
court erred in entering final judgment without a trial, purportedly pursuant to section
702.10, Florida Statutes (2015), because MDTR timely interposed written defenses and
properly requested trial on the issues of damages and priority of security positions....
...The
complaint alleged that Bank was the holder of the relevant promissory note, the note was
in default for non-payment, and the note was secured by a mortgage on property allegedly
owned by MDTR.
Bank filed a motion for order to show cause for the accelerated entry of final
judgment of foreclosure pursuant to section 702.10. That statute allows a lienholder to
“request an order to show cause for the entry of final judgment in a foreclosure action.”
§ 702.10(1), Fla....
...If the court
finds that the foreclosure complaint is verified and complies with statutory requirements,
“the court shall promptly issue an order directed to the other parties named in the action
to show cause why a final judgment of foreclosure should not be entered.” Id. Section
702.10(1)(b) explains,
The right to be heard at the hearing to show cause is waived
if a defendant, after being served as provided by law with an
order to show cause, engages in conduct that clearly...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6929, 1995 WL 380112
PER CURIAM. Wak Limited, Inc., appeals a foreclosure judgment in favor of Simkins Industries, Inc. The judgment is affirmed on authority of section
59.041, Florida Statutes (1993). The foreclosure judgment in this case was entered pursuant to subsection
702.10(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...ure judgment on other pending litigation, apparently involving personal guarantees of the underlying indebtedness. The only issue now before us is the foreclosure judgment, which the statute expressly declares to be “for in rem relief only.” Id. § 702.10(l)(a)(8)(b)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 3435351, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10871
...to make payments during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings, the
court erred in entering the foreclosure judgment instead of ordering that
the plaintiff be entitled to possession of the premises or some other method
of enforcement of the court’s payment order pursuant to section
702.10(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2010)....
...We disagree with the defendant’s
argument and affirm.
The plaintiff filed a verified foreclosure complaint against the defendant.
The plaintiff also filed an ex-parte motion for an order directing the
defendant to show cause: (1) why a foreclosure judgment should not be
entered pursuant to section 702.10(1), Florida Statutes (2010); or (2) why
the defendant should not be required to make payments during the
pendency of the foreclosure proceedings pursuant to section 702.10(2),
Florida Statutes (2010). In 2010, sections 702.10(1) and (2) provided, in
pertinent part:
(1) After a complaint in a foreclosure proceeding has been
filed, the mortgagee may request an order to show cause for
the entry of final judgment and the court shall immediately
review the complaint....
...entitled to possession of the premises upon the failure of the
mortgagor to make the payment required in the order unless
at the hearing on the order to show cause the court finds good
cause to order some other method of enforcement of its order.
§ 702.10, Fla. Stat. (2010).1
The court entered the order to show cause as to both sections 702.10(1)
and (2)....
...The defendant then filed its answer and affirmative
defenses contesting the foreclosure on various grounds.
After the defendant filed its answer and affirmative defenses, the court
entered an order directing the defendant to make payments during the
pendency of the foreclosure proceedings pursuant to section 702.10(2). In
the order, the court did not state any finding that the defendant had not
shown cause why the court should not enter a foreclosure judgment
pursuant to section 702.10(1)....
...the plaintiff was
“entitled to submit an ex parte affidavit . . . and to take possession of the
premises and to the entry of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure . . . without
further hearing.” (emphasis added).
1 In 2013, the Legislature amended section 702.10....
...The defendant argued that the court’s order directing it to make
payments during the pendency of the foreclosure proceedings was
deficient because the court did not first determine that the plaintiff was
likely to prevail in the foreclosure action pursuant to section 702.10(2)(d).
The court denied the motion on the ground it was implicit within the order
directing payments that the plaintiff was likely to prevail in the foreclosure
action.
The defendant then filed a motion for rehearing. In that motion, the
defendant argued that, after it did not comply with the payment order, the
court erred in entering the foreclosure judgment instead of ordering that
the plaintiff be entitled to possession of the premises pursuant to section
702.10(2)(f). According to the defendant, “Nothing within [section
702.10(2)(f)] permits the entry of a Judgment of Foreclosure ....
...The defendant raises several arguments, but we
choose to address only its argument that, after it did not comply with the
payment order, the court erred in entering the foreclosure judgment
instead of ordering that the plaintiff be entitled to possession of the
premises pursuant to section
702.10(2)(f). In response, the plaintiff argues
that section
702.10(2)(f)’s reference to “some other method of enforcement”
of the circuit court’s payment order includes the entry of a foreclosure
judgment.
Because the parties’ arguments turn on an interpretation of section
702.10(2)(f), our standard of review is de novo. See State v. S.M.,
131 So.
3d 780, 785 (Fla. 2013) (“Judicial interpretations of statutes are pure
questions of law subject to de novo review.”) (citation and quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude that section
702.10(2)(f) allows a plaintiff to obtain a
foreclosure judgment upon a defendant’s failure to comply with a payment
order entered pursuant to section
702.10(2)(d). We agree with the
plaintiff’s argument that section
702.10(2)(f)’s reference to “some other
method of enforcement” of the circuit court’s payment order includes the
4
entry of a foreclosure judgment. What better way to sanction a mortgagor
for non-payment than to foreclose on the property?
Our conclusion is consistent with section
702.10(1)’s provision for an
expedited method for handling foreclosure actions. Our conclusion also is
consistent with the 2013 amendment to section
702.10. Subsection (2)
now provides that the payment remedy provided therein is “in addition to
any other relief that the court may award.” See Ch. 2013-137, § 6, Laws
of Fla. This amendment indicates the original intent of section
702.10(2)(f)
to allow a plaintiff to obtain a foreclosure judgment upon a defendant’s
failure to comply with a payment order entered pursuant to section
702.10(2)(d)....
...4th DCA 2008) (“Where the legislature expressly
characterizes the intent of legislation, it is especially appropriate to
consider the amended statute to determine the original legislative intent
of the statute.”); see also Ch. 2013-137, § 8, Laws of Fla. (“[T]he
amendments to s. 702.10, Florida Statutes, ....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 68, 2016 WL 164134
...foreclosure process by ensuring initial disclosure of a plaintiff’s status and the facts
supporting that status, thereby ensuring the availability of documents necessary to
the prosecution of the case.” §
702.015(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). Chapter 2013-137
also amended section
702.10, Florida Statutes, relating to orders to show cause
why a judgment of foreclosure should not be entered and hearings thereon....
...Form 1.944(c) is a motion for an order to show cause for
entry of final judgment of foreclosure. Form 1.944(d) is an order to show cause to
be issued following the filing of the motion for an order to show cause. These
forms are meant to be used in proceedings under section 702.10, Florida Statutes
-5-
(2015)....
...Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
Committee Note
- 17 -
2014 Adoption. This form is designed to comply with section 702.10, Florida Statutes
(2013).
- 18 -
FORM 1.944(d)....
...If the mortgage provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and the requested fee does
not exceed 3% of the principal amount owed at the time the complaint is filed, the court may not
need to hold a hearing to adjudge the requested fee to be reasonable.
8. Any final judgment of foreclosure entered under section 702.10(1) Florida
Statutes, shall be only for in rem relief; however, entry of such final judgment of foreclosure
shall not preclude entry of an in personam money damages judgment or deficiency judgment
where otherwise allowed by law.
9....
..._____________________
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies to:
Committee Note
2014 Adoption. This form is designed to comply with section 702.10(1), Florida Statutes
(2013).
- 20 -
FORM 1.996(b)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 752, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3682, 2014 WL 6977929
...Const.
“expedite the foreclosure process by ensuring initial disclosure of a plaintiff’s status and
the facts supporting that status, thereby ensuring the availability of documents necessary
to the prosecution of the case.” Ch. 2013-173, § 3, Laws of Fla. Chapter 2013-173 also
amended section 702.10, Florida Statutes (2012), relating to orders to show cause why a
judgment of foreclosure should not be entered and hearings held thereon....
...further relief as may be awarded at law or in equity.
- 15 -
Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
Committee Note
2014 Adoption. This form is designed to comply with section 702.10,
Florida Statutes (2013).
- 16 -
FORM 1.944(d) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS CAUSE has come before the court on …..plaintiff’s/lie...
...If the mortgage provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and the
requested fee does not exceed 3% of the principal amount owed at the time the
complaint is filed, the court may not need to hold a hearing to adjudge the
requested fee to be reasonable.
8. Any final judgment of foreclosure entered under section 702.10(1)
Florida Statutes, shall be only for in rem relief; however, entry of such final
judgment of foreclosure shall not preclude entry of an in personam money
damages judgment or deficiency judgment where otherwise allowed by law.
9....
...
_____________________
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies to:
Committee Note
2014 Adoption. This form is designed to comply with section 702.10(1),
Florida Statutes (2013).
- 19 -
FORM 1.996(a)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...foreclosure case brought by the Client, initially represented by the Attorney, against
a borrower. The Client obtained a pretrial order requiring the borrower to make
monthly payments during the pendency of the foreclosure action, as provided by
section 702.10(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2012)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3549, 1996 WL 165413
PER CURIAM. We affirm an order granting final judgment of foreclosure under section 702.10, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...order, we address only one, as it is dispositive of the issue on appeal. Green v. First American Bank and Trust,
511 So.2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied,
520 So.2d 584 (Fla.1988). In December 1993, Lennar Florida Partners I, as authorized by section
702.10, sought a summary foreclosure of its interest in a parcel of land known as the “Smith Dairy Property.” Pursuant to the procedure set forth in section
702.10(l)(a), an order to show cause was served on Appellant and a hearing on the order set....
...1991), where statute authorized affidavit stating “officer’s grounds for belief’ that person arrested had violated section
316.193), rev. denied,
639 So.2d 980 (Fla.1994). The term document includes pleadings. §
92.525(4)(b) (1993). Reviewing section
702.10 in light of the requirements in section
92.525, we find no basis for permitting verification under section
702.10 to be made solely on “information or belief.” As such, Appellant’s verified answer was insufficient to preclude entry of a final judgment of foreclosure as provided for in sections
702.10(l)(b) and (l)(c). We have considered Appellant’s contention that we need not be concerned with section
92.525 in light of section
702.10’s authorization of the filing of presumably unverified defenses by motion....
