Fort Plantation Investments, LLC v. Ironstone Bank, FSB, 85 So. 3d 1169

Fort Plantation borrowed $1,035,000 as a construction loan and issued a promissory note to Ironstone Bank.
The note was secured by a mortgage on a two-parcel St. Johns County property and by commercial guaranties signed by the guarantors.
After Fort Plantation defaulted, the bank filed a single suit seeking foreclosure and money judgments on the note against Fort Plantation and against the guarantors (counts I–VI).
The trial court granted final summary judgment for the bank, awarding $1,165,240.33 plus interest and authorizing a public sale of the property; the court also retained jurisdiction to enter further orders, including a potential deficiency judgment, and abated collection against guarantors pending foreclosure.
On appeal, the guarantors argued the bank was not entitled to monetary damages until after foreclosure and any deficiency, and challenged the timing and propriety of pursuing guaranty and foreclosure actions in the same proceeding.
The court held the guaranties were absolute and unconditional, permitting the bank to pursue guaranty and foreclosure simultaneously, but allowed set-off for any proceeds from the foreclosure sale if equity requires.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a money judgment against guarantors before foreclosure was proper	Fort Plantation and guarantors contend damages should await foreclosure and deficiency.	Bank argues the guaranties were absolute; set-off available later if warranted.	Yes; the bank could obtain a money judgment against guarantors prior to foreclosure.
Whether the bank could pursue guaranty and foreclosure actions in the same proceeding	Fort Plantation contends consolidation was improper.	Bank asserts actions are not inconsistent remedies and may proceed together.	Yes; pursuing both remedies in one suit was permissible.
Whether set-off or credit for foreclosure proceeds should be available to guarantors	Set-off not expressly provided in the judgment and abatement order; limited relief sought.	Set-off should be allowed to the extent foreclosure proceeds reimburse the mortgagee.	Affirmed without prejudice to guarantors seeking set-off.

Mullins v. Sunshine State Serv. Corp., 540 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (absolute vs conditional guaranty; liability upon default under absolute guaranty)
Anderson v. Trade Winds Enters., Corp., 241 So.2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (unambiguous unconditional guarantee; holder need not exhaust remedies against principal before guarantor)
Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (suits on guaranty and foreclosure are not inconsistent remedies)
New Holland, Inc. v. Trunk, 579 So.2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (definition of guaranty; distinction between absolute and conditional guaranties)
Fort Plantation Investments, LLC v. Ironstone Bank, FSB, 85 So.3d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (addressing set-off rights and consolidation of guaranty and foreclosure actions)