Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 73--1378

Decision Date28 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73--1378,73--1378
Citation295 So.2d 714
PartiesGRANDWAY CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Robert BROWN, Sr., and Clare M. Brown, his wife, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Douglas C. Kaplan and Howard T. Jaffe, Hollywood, for appellant.

Robert Brown, Sr., and Clare M. Brown, in pro. per.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's complaint for foreclosure and declaring the subject note and mortgage null and void.

Plaintiff, Grandway Credit Corporation, filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage wherein it alleged that defendants, Robert Brown and his wife, after having made one payment defaulted on a mortgage note in the sum of $2,700 which they executed and delivered to the plaintiff. In response thereto, defendant-appellees filed an answer and counterclaim for $1,000 in damages and alleged therein that plaintiff violated the Federal Truth and Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq. in that it failed (1) to make full disclosure thereunder, (2) to provide defendants with a duplicate instrument containing the required disclosure, and (3) to give the three-day notice of rescission. The cause came on for trial on July 24, 1973 where it was admitted that the defendants had made only one payment on the note and mortgage. In addition, a representative of the plaintiff testified that the three-day notice of rescission was furnished to the appellees. The defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, did not testify. At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial judge intervened and invalidated the subject note and mortgage and as grounds therefor reasoned that the three-day notice of rescission was a prerequisite to the establishment of a prima facie case for and on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the court entered the herein appealed order dismissing plaintiff-appellant's complaint with prejudice and declaring the note and mortgage a nullity for failure of the appellant to affirmatively show compliance with the Federal Truth and Lending Act. In addition, the court also dismissed the counterclaim as being inequitable. We reverse.

In their counterclaim for damages, defendants alleged the violations of the Truth and Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq. Since a counterclaim is in effect a separate cause of action, the defendant has the burden of proving the facts alleged therein. 8 Fla.Jur. Counterclaim § 46 (1956)....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., s. 80-26
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1982
    ...proof upon the initiator of the action. Here, the Taxpayers initiated the action upon their counterclaim. In Grandway Credit Corporation v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the court recognized that a counterclaim is a separate cause of action. Consequently, the Taxpayers are requi......
  • First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of South Carolina v. Owings
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 18, 1979
    ...to invalidate the contract and thus, in this case to prevent the lender from repossessing the property. As held in Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla.) the Truth in Lending Act provides for 'its own penalties upon violation thereof (15 U.S.C.A. § 1640) and does not affe......
  • First Nat. Bank v. Felt
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1985
    ...Savings & Loan Ass'n, supra; Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Webb, 464 F.Supp. 520 (E.D.Tenn.1978); Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714 (Fla.App.1974); Smith v. Society Nat'l Bank, 141 Ga.App. 19, 232 S.E.2d 367 (1977); Charter Finance Co. v. Henderson, 60 Ill.2d 323, 326 N.E.2......
  • Matter of Ingersoll
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • February 9, 1981
    ...invalidate the contract and thus, in this case to prevent the lender from repossessing the property. As held in Grandway Credit Corp. v. Brown, 295 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla.App.), the Truth in Lending Act provides for "its own penalties upon violation thereof (15 U.S.C.A. § 1640) and does not af......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT