Case Name: Abdul RASHID, as Trustee, Appellant, v. NEWBERRY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-02-24
Citations: 502 So. 2d 1316
Docket Number: No. 86-1866
Parties: Abdul RASHID, as Trustee, Appellant, v. NEWBERRY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 502
Pages: 1316–1316

Head Matter:
Abdul RASHID, as Trustee, Appellant, v. NEWBERRY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
No. 86-1866.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 24, 1987.
Alec Ross, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Shapiro, Rose & Fishman and Nancy K. Neidich and Frank J. Marrero, North Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It is undisputed upon this record that the appellee bank, pursuant to its obligation under a mortgage contract, was required to provide a thirty-day notice of default to the appellant, Rashid. It is likewise undisputed that no thirty-day notice was given to anyone. In addition to the bank's failure to comply with the thirty-day notice, the record shows that a number of other discovery issues have not been properly resolved. Summary judgment, therefore, is inappropriate. See Marlar v. Quincy State Bank, 463 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Foxfire Inn of Stuart, Florida, Inc. v. Neff, 433 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Salzberg v. Eisenberg, 368 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. The contract provided that the mortgage was binding upon "the respective successors and assigns of Lender' and Borrower." Rashid is a successor to the borrower. The bank's argu-meat that Rashid was not entitled to notice because he was not a party to the contract is, therefore, unavailing.