Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Savarese v. Schoner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 8, 1985No. 84-698Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCampbell, Judge

I concur completely with affirming the refusal of the court below in refusing to order a foreclosure because the default was technical and the result would be unjust.

*697I dissent from the majority in its reversal of the denial of attorney’s fees below. I believe where the court below finds that to allow foreclosure as a remedy for a technical default would be “unconscionable,” it follows that to allow attorney’s fees for bringing that “unconscionable” foreclosure action is likewise unconscionable.

While I agree that attorney’s fees are sometimes found appropriate even when foreclosure is denied,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schechtman v. GrobbelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
  2. Maw v. AbinalesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  3. Rice v. CampisiDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  4. Rockwood v. DeRosaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API