JAMES A. BOCKOVER AND MARILYN R. BOCKOVER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SIGNATURE REALTY OF ST. PETERSBURG, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, SIGNATURE, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, PARK BANK OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, AND BEST BUSINESS BROKERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants sought foreclosure of an agreement for deed after the vendee defaulted on payments. The trial court awarded a money judgment for the balance due but failed to order foreclosure of the security interest. The court reversed and remanded, holding that when an agreement for deed contains an acceleration clause and the vendee defaults, the trial court must order foreclosure of the security rather than enter a simple money judgment.
The trial court erred in failing to order foreclosure of the security of the agreement for deed. When an agreement for deed provides for acceleration at the vendor's option upon default, the trial court must order foreclosure of the security for the entire accelerated amount rather than enter a simple money judgment.
[1] A trial court errs by entering a personal judgment for the accelerated balance due under an agreement for deed without ordering foreclosure of the security interest provi…
[2] When an agreement for deed contains an acceleration clause, a vendor who elects to accelerate the entire balance due upon vendee's default must pursue foreclosure of the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellants cite as error the failure of the trial court to order foreclosure of the security of the agreement for deed. Appellants are correct and the court below erred in failing to order foreclosure.”
The court's holding that the trial court committed reversible error by not ordering foreclosure of the agreement for deed security.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants and Signature, Inc. entered into an agreement for deed on January 1, 1980, with appellants as vendors and Signature, Inc. as vendee. Signat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreclosure Of Agreement For Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellants appeal a final judgment in this case involving an agreement for deed. Appellee/cross-appellant Park Bank of Florida cross-appeals an order entered subsequent to the final judgment which order disposed of rent receipts held in escrow. We reverse and remand on appellants/cross-appellees’ appeal from the final judgment and affirm on the cross-appeal of Park Bank. Appellee/cross-appellant Park Bank was the only appellee responding to this appeal.
Appellants and appellee Signature, Inc. entered into an agreement for deed on January 1, 1980, wherein appellants were the vendors and appellee Signature, Inc. was the vendee. Signature, Inc. subsequently assigned its interest in the agreement for deed to Signature Realty of St. Petersburg, Inc. The vendees defaulted under the terms of the agreement by failing to make payments when due. Appellants elected, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, to accelerate the entire balance due and brought their action below seeking foreclosure of the agreement for deed. The trial court determined that the appellee vendees had defaulted and found appellants entitled to the entire balance due, but rather than ordering foreclosure of the security of the agreement, entered final judgment for the balance due together with interests, costs and attorney’s fees.
Appellants cite as error the failure of the trial court to order foreclosure of the security of the agreement for deed. Appellants are correct and the court below erred in failing to order foreclosure. Ernest v. Carter, 368 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Adkinson v. Nyberg, 344 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The agreement for deed involved in this proceeding provided for an acceleration of the debt at the option of the vendors in the event of a default in payments as did the agreement in Ernest.
On remand, the trial court shall follow the instructions of Ernest and Adkinson in ordering foreclosure of the security of the agreement for deed for the entire amount of the balance due under the agreement as accelerated.
Reversed on appeal, affirmed on cross-appeal.
RYDER, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leon F. Adkinson and wife Eveline D. Adkinson v. Anne Nyberg, 344 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Asa M. Ernest and Anita B. Ernest v. Carter, 368 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)