Buchanan v. Gaines

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Buchanan v. Gaines

545 So. 2d 311, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1034, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 1989 WL 39615

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2595

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 311 (Buchanan v. Gaines) 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

Buchanan v. Gaines, 545 So. 2d 311, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1034, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 1989 WL 39615 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

“Payments in reduction of an indebtedness on a prior mortgage, made by foreclosure purchaser after decree and foreclosure sale, are not recoverable from the mortgagor.” Miller v. Stavros, 174 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965);¹ see Patron v. American Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 382 So.2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Horne v. Smith, 368 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Provident Nat’l Bank v. Thunderbird Assoc., 364 So.2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We therefore reverse the final judgment. Reversed and remanded.

¹

. The trial court attempted to distinguish Miller v. Stavros, 174 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), on the ground that the purchaser in this case was a party to the foreclosure action while the successful bidder in Miller was a stranger to the action. The final judgment states “[t]his is not a situation where a bidder, who was not otherwise a party acquired property at a foreclosure sale and was prevented from recovering sums which he paid on a prior mortgage after the sale." That the purchaser in this case is a creditor does not distinguish Miller from the case before us. "When the judgment creditor purchases property at sheriffs sale under execution, ... he stands in the same position and acquires the same rights and protections which a stranger to the record would acquire by being the successful bidder and purchaser at such sale.” City of Sanford v. Ashton, 131 Fla. 759, 762-63, 179 So. 765, 767 (1938).

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

PER CURIAM.

“Payments in reduction of an indebtedness on a prior mortgage, made by foreclosure purchaser after decree and foreclosure sale, are not recoverable from the mortgagor.” Miller v. Stavros, 174 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965);¹ see Patron v. American Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 382 So.2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Horne v. Smith, 368 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Provident Nat’l Bank v. Thunderbird Assoc., 364 So.2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We therefore reverse the final judgment. Reversed and remanded.

¹

. The trial court attempted to distinguish Miller v. Stavros, 174 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), on the ground that the purchaser in this case was a party to the foreclosure action while the successful bidder in Miller was a stranger to the action. The final judgment states “[t]his is not a situation where a bidder, who was not otherwise a party acquired property at a foreclosure sale and was prevented from recovering sums which he paid on a prior mortgage after the sale." That the purchaser in this case is a creditor does not distinguish Miller from the case before us. "When the judgment creditor purchases property at sheriffs sale under execution, ... he stands in the same position and acquires the same rights and protections which a stranger to the record would acquire by being the successful bidder and purchaser at such sale.” City of Sanford v. Ashton, 131 Fla. 759, 762-63, 179 So. 765, 767 (1938).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 311, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1034, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2215, 1989 WL 39615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-gaines-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack