Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Walker v. Midland Mortgage Co.
Citations: 935 So. 2d 519; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8131Docket: No. 3D04-2436
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 24, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
Carl and Tamico Walker appealed a final judgment of foreclosure against them, which was affirmed by the court. The Walkers defaulted on their mortgage with Midfirst Bank following Mr. Walker's severe work-related injury in 2000. They intended to use the proceeds from a personal injury settlement to resolve their mortgage arrears. However, before any payment was made, foreclosure proceedings were initiated on March 13, 2002. The Walkers claimed there was an oral agreement with their former servicing agent, Irwin, to delay the foreclosure action. Evidence included communications where Irwin's representative, Jackie Barson, indicated a willingness to postpone the filing for a reasonable time, specifically until May 1, 2002. However, Barson clarified that this did not prevent the new servicing agent, Midland, from filing the foreclosure action prior to that date. The court noted that for summary judgment, the burden was on the Walkers to demonstrate disputed material facts, which they failed to do. There was no evidence of an agreement preventing Midland from proceeding with foreclosure, nor was there any dispute regarding the Walkers' default or the amount owed on their mortgage. Although the Walkers disputed the payoff amount, they had received a detailed breakdown shortly before the foreclosure was filed, which the court found sufficient to affirm the judgment. Additionally, HUD, the agency insuring the mortgage, had approved an extension for initiating foreclosure proceedings until May 1, 2002, but this did not impact the validity of the foreclosure initiated on March 13, 2002. Overall, the trial court's judgment in favor of the mortgagee was upheld.