Above Par Loss Prevention, Inc. v. Albano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Above Par Loss Prevention, Inc. v. Albano

983 So. 2d 775, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 9113, 2008 WL 2436149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 2008

DocketNo. 4D07-3675

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 983 So. 2d 775 (Above Par Loss Prevention, Inc. v. Albano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Above Par Loss Prevention, Inc. v. Albano, 983 So. 2d 775, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 9113, 2008 WL 2436149 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

Affirmed. The appellant complains of an order authorizing disbursement of surplus funds to National Equity Recovery Services (“NERS”), a surplus trustee for the receipt of foreclosure proceeds pursuant to section 45.033(3), Florida Statutes. Appellant claimed that it was entitled to the proceeds, as it had an assignment from the owners of the foreclosed property and was also a qualified surplus trustee. However, NERS also had an assignment from the owners and a letter from the owners to appellant rescinding the agreement with appellant, as the owner claimed that appellant was not properly qualified. The court order found that appellant was not properly qualified. There is no transcript of the hearing involved.¹ Without it, we cannot determine whether evidence was presented on issues which require resolution of questions of fact or that any of the issues raised in this appeal were preserved at the hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARNER, J.

Affirmed. The appellant complains of an order authorizing disbursement of surplus funds to National Equity Recovery Services (“NERS”), a surplus trustee for the receipt of foreclosure proceeds pursuant to section 45.033(3), Florida Statutes. Appellant claimed that it was entitled to the proceeds, as it had an assignment from the owners of the foreclosed property and was also a qualified surplus trustee. However, NERS also had an assignment from the owners and a letter from the owners to appellant rescinding the agreement with appellant, as the owner claimed that appellant was not properly qualified. The court order found that appellant was not properly qualified. There is no transcript of the hearing involved.¹ Without it, we cannot determine whether evidence was presented on issues which require resolution of questions of fact or that any of the issues raised in this appeal were preserved at the hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979).

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

983 So. 2d 775, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 9113, 2008 WL 2436149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/above-par-loss-prevention-inc-v-albano-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack