Cheves v. Equicredit Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cheves v. Equicredit Corp.

852 So. 2d 362, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12204, 2003 WL 21946426

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2003

DocketNos. 5D02-2138, 5D02-2296

StatusPublished

This text of 852 So. 2d 362 (Cheves v. Equicredit Corp.) 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

Cheves v. Equicredit Corp., 852 So. 2d 362, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12204, 2003 WL 21946426 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Corine and Vincent Cheves appeal an order granting Equicredit Corporation’s motion to enforce its writs of possession following foreclosure of its mortgage encumbering the Cheves’ residence. Having carefully considered the record, we find no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in enforcing the writs of possession. See Tilden Groves Holding Corp. v. Orlando/Orange County Expressway, 816 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). It was the trial court’s duty, not this court’s, to determine whether or not the Cheveses were entitled to relief from the judgment of foreclosure. Church v. Strickland, 382 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the Cheveses were not entitled to be relieved from the foreclosure judgment, and that Equicredit was entitled to possession of the property. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, J.

Corine and Vincent Cheves appeal an order granting Equicredit Corporation’s motion to enforce its writs of possession following foreclosure of its mortgage encumbering the Cheves’ residence. Having carefully considered the record, we find no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in enforcing the writs of possession. See Tilden Groves Holding Corp. v. Orlando/Orange County Expressway, 816 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). It was the trial court’s duty, not this court’s, to determine whether or not the Cheveses were entitled to relief from the judgment of foreclosure. Church v. Strickland, 382 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the Cheveses were not entitled to be relieved from the foreclosure judgment, and that Equicredit was entitled to possession of the property. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 So. 2d 362, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12204, 2003 WL 21946426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheves-v-equicredit-corp-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack