Case Name: Richard O. HANCE, Appellant, v. The DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB, as successor by merger to Anchor Savings Bank FSB, a federally chartered savings bank, f/k/a First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake City, as servicing agent for Ramapo Bank, as custodian under Custodial Agreement dated May 1, 1990, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-08-20
Citations: 678 So. 2d 11
Docket Number: No. 95-2978
Parties: Richard O. HANCE, Appellant, v. The DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB, as successor by merger to Anchor Savings Bank FSB, a federally chartered savings bank, f/k/a First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake City, as servicing agent for Ramapo Bank, as custodian under Custodial Agreement dated May 1, 1990, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 678
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
Richard O. HANCE, Appellant, v. The DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB, as successor by merger to Anchor Savings Bank FSB, a federally chartered savings bank, f/k/a First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake City, as servicing agent for Ramapo Bank, as custodian under Custodial Agreement dated May 1, 1990, Appellee.
No. 95-2978.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 20, 1996.
Joseph S. Farley, Jr. of Mahon & Farley, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Sonya K. Daws, Cynthia Tunnicliff, and William W. Blue of Pennington & Haben, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from summary judgment in favor of Appellee in its suit to foreclose on a note and mortgage executed by Appellant. Our review of the record indicates that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the note was in default. See § 702.01, Florida Statutes; Cross v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 359 So.2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (mortgage foreclosure is an equitable action); Campbell v. Werner, 232 So.2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Stephens v. Dichtenmueller, 216 So.2d 448 (Fla.1968) (great caution should be exercised in any summary judgment proceeding denying the litigant ample opportunity to demonstrate that he is entitled to the benefit of trial); Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985) (every inference is drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought). We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.