sixty days after receipt of full payment. What is full payment is disputed in this case. Under the terms of the mortgage in question, the mortgagor’s default would entitle Petitioner to recover costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses involved in the foreclosure action. Obviously, the payoff figure that was good until January 14, 2000, does not include additional interest, advances, attorney’s fees, and costs from that date though the date of the March 2000 hearings, not to mention those that continued to accrue prior to the issuance of the May 25 order on review, or those that would be incurred through the date when the court would determine the appropriate amount of foreclosure expenses. See Fowler v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Defuniak Springs, 643 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 990 (Fla.1995);
holding that expenses bank incurred in protecting its property interest after mortgagors failed to perform including interest accruing thereon was properly included in indebtedness due under mortgage and awarded to bank in foreclosure action holding that states interest in maintaining public confidence in bank management justifies postdeprivation hearing for removal of bank manager holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law holding that any property in which the taxpayer has any right title or interest is subject to foreclosure proceeding including property in which others claim an interest so long as all persons having liens or claiming any interest in the property are joined as parties to the suit holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor