05-1418 FEINSTEIN V. NEW BETHEL

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2006 » 05-1418 FEINSTEIN V. NEW BETHEL

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-1418 FEINSTEIN V. NEW BETHEL

Case Date: 09/01/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

MARK FEINSTEIN, Appellant, vs. NEW BETHEL MISSIONARY BAPTIST, etc., et al., Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 04-21386 CASE NO. 3D05-1418

Opinion filed September 1, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Judge. Dubow, Dubow & Wallace and Kelly A. Gibson and Jason B. Dubow (Dania Beach), for appellant. Glenn R. Miller, for appellees.

Before SHEPHERD, SUAREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. SHEPHERD, J. Mark Feinstein appeals a final judgment of foreclosure in which he was denied a pre-payment fee on the accelerated debt

being

foreclosed. the

Because imposition

the of

promissory a

note

expressly fee upon

contemplated

pre-payment

acceleration, we conclude the trial court erred in not including the fee in the final judgment. final judgment under review. In 2002, New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church executed a promissory note and mortgage to General Mortgage Associates, Accordingly, we reverse the

Inc. in the sum of $308,200. General Mortgage's interest in

Feinstein is the successor to the note and mortgage. On

September 1, 2004, New Bethel defaulted on its monthly payments. The pertinent portion of the "Default; Acceleration" provision of the promissory note reads: This note is secured by the Mortgage and other Security Documents. If any payment required to be made by the terms of this note . . . is not paid on or before the due date therefor . . ., the whole of the unpaid principal hereof, together with accrued interest and outstanding default interest, and in addition, any prepayment fee shall . . . become due and payable. . . . Acceleration of the debt as set forth in this paragraph constitutes an involuntary prepayment for which the prepayment fee provided for elsewhere herein shall be due and payable. This clause specifically was bargained for as consideration for the extension of credit based upon the interest rate granted by lender. (emphasis added).

2

The promissory note prohibited partial pre-payments, but permitted pre-payment in full under a declining rate schedule during the first four years. If New Bethel had sought to pre-

pay in September 2004, the required pre-payment fee was four percent of the original principal balance, or $12,328. Of

course, New Bethel did not seek to pre-pay, but rather defaulted on the mortgage. We find that an express provision of a promissory note that calls for a pre-payment fee in the event of acceleration is enforceable in this state. We are unable to locate a Florida

case that expressly so holds, but both the Florida Supreme Court and this court have indicated that such would be its holding if presented with our facts. Florida Nat'l Bank v. Bankatlantic,

589 So. 2d 255, 258 (Fla. 1991)("We endorse the general rule that unless otherwise specifically provided for in the note, the lender cannot upon the lender's acceleration also collect the prepayment penalty.")(emphasis added); Gen. Mortgage Assoc. v. Campolo Realty & Mortgage Corp., 678 So. 2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(holding that pre-payment clause at issue in note and mortgage "does not `specifically' provide for recovery of the penalty after and in addition to the `lender's acceleration'"); see also Begonia Corp. v. NAM Fin. Corp., 710 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(applying the general rule enunciated in Florida Nat'l).

3

As the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division stated when squarely faced with the issue of enforceability of a provision that specifically calls for a pre-payment penalty upon acceleration: While there is a certain ineluctable logic to the statement that payment after acceleration cannot be considered prepayment, we can perceive no reason why the debtor should be relieved of the terms of the contract freely entered into. The terms were clear and unambiguous, the parties clearly experienced and sophisticated in loan transactions of this type. The certainty of the remedy provided by the clause undoubtedly affected the pricing of the loan. If we were to deem the clause unenforceable, we would be providing defendants with a better contract than they were able to negotiate for themselves; we decline to do so. Westmark Commercial Mortgage Fund IV v. Teenform Assoc., L.P., 827 A.2d 1154, 1161 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003)(internal citations omitted). In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked the fact that Feinstein satisfied the judgment on appeal. The

satisfaction was executed by Feinstein's counsel and recorded between the date of the final judgment and the date scheduled for the foreclosure sale. eleventh hour refinancing Apparently, New Bethel consummated an to save the property. Feinstein

accordingly was required by law to satisfy the judgment. See

Download 05-1418 FEINSTEIN V. NEW BETHEL.pdf