The title to this thread is from a question asked in a prior thread "Not being notified of meeting".Below a recent Florida decision:
"It seems we are still waiting for a post of some authority for the proposition that conditions precedent needed to be raised in a MTD."
Summary: “We conclude that Appellant failed to sufficiently plead the denial of a condition precedent in this foreclosure action. For that reason, we affirm the summary judgment.”
Additionally, Appellant Godshalk on the face of it took [ ]* approach of a ‘shotgun denial” ~ at his detriment….:
“Appellant's shotgun denial failed to specify which of the thirteen types of notices required by the ten-page mortgage document had not been sent. Instead, he merely denied that "any of the notices required by the document" had been sent. During the ensuing two years, Appellant never attempted to amend his pleading. At the hearing,
Appellant revealed for the first time that his defense was based on the failure to send the notice of acceleration. The purpose of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(c) is to put the burden on the defendant to identify the specific condition that the plaintiff failed to perform—so that the plaintiff may be prepared to produce proof or cure the omission, if it can be cured. The rule is intended to force a defendant to show his hand in advance to avoid surprise. As in all pleading, good faith is imperative. Here, Appellant chose to hold his cards close to his vest by use of an overbroad pleading. An overbroad pleading is not a particular and specific one. If the notice of acceleration was the focus of Appellant's defense, he could have, and should have, framed his pleading to focus on that particular notice. Had he done so, Appellee could have focused its application for summary judgment on the acceleration notice.”
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012
JOHN R. GODSHALK,
v. Case No. 5D10-2376
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, L.P., ET AL.,
Quote: Texas: The court even provides how the case was lost.
Quote John Lewis:
|Today at 12:04 PM||Reply with quote||#31|
FL Court of Appeals Reverse Another Case on Conditions Precedent: Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A
06/01/11 at 03:22 PM
CT Superior Court Decision on Conditions Precedent: United States Bank NA v. Hahnel
10/16/10 at 03:56 PM
The Important of raising all affirmative defenses in the answer to foreclosure defenses
01/22/11 at 01:34 AM
The Conditions Precedent Affirmative Defense
10/16/10 at 03:56 PM
The Important of raising all Affirmative Defenses in the Answer to Foreclosure Defenses
05/24/11 at 11:30 AM
FL Court of Appeals Reverse Summary Judgment on Failed Conditions Precedent: Goncharuk
v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc
05/24/11 at 11:33 AM
FL Court of Appeals Reverse Summary Judgment Due To Disputes of Fact: Sandoro v. HSBC Bank N.A
05/25/11 at 08:10 PM
OH Court of Appeals Reverse Summary Judgment on Failed Conditions Precedent:
Thanks to Forum Contributors: William A. Roper Jr, Bill, Texas, George Burns, my apologies to those Contributors not listed.
Note: William A Roper Jr and Bill you both r missed!
*I would ask that this Thread be pollution free, with no deletions of any 'post' or the complete deletion of the this thread in its entirety.