Case ID: so2d_388/html/1066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

441 DEVELOPMENT CORP., and Tiffany Co., Appellants, v. GOLD COAST CAPITAL CORPORATION, etc., Peninsular Title Insurance Co., Victor H. Semet, Ronald Jacobs, Samuel I. Gal, G. Anthony West, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. 78-1711.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Sept. 17, 1980.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1980.
    Leo Greenfield and Marvin Michaels of Law Offices of Leo Greenfield, North Miami, for appellants.
    Marshall G. Curran, Jr. of Spear, Deuschle & Curran, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Gold Coast Capital Corp.
   PER CURIAM.

We find that there is no genuine issue of fact as to default or conspiracy and that the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment for appellee upon the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the “Summary Final Decree of Foreclosure.”

We further find that the amended counterclaim did state a cause of action; consequently, it should not have been dismissed. However, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on the amended counterclaim contemporaneously with their motion to dismiss. The trial court, having granted the motion to dismiss, did not rule on this motion for summary judgment. We see no genuine issue of material fact as to the matters raised by the aforesaid pleading and believe that the last mentioned motion should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss, and remand for consideration of the motion for summary judgment not inconsistent herewith.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

BERANEK, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.