Faye Sosna v. U.S. Bank, National Association, Etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 8, 2025
Docket3D2024-0866
StatusPublished

This text of Faye Sosna v. U.S. Bank, National Association, Etc. (Faye Sosna v. U.S. Bank, National Association, Etc.) 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
Faye Sosna v. U.S. Bank, National Association, Etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal Stateof Florida

Opinion filed October 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-0866 Lower Tribunal No. 21-20012-CA-01

Faye Sosna, et al., Appellants,

vs.

U.S. Bank National Association, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP, and Matthew J. McGuane; McGlinchey Stafford, and Kimberly Held Israel (Jacksonville), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Navarro v. Borges, 388 So. 3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA

2024) (stating that this Court reviews the trial court’s entry of summary

judgment de novo); § 695.01(1), Florida Statutes (2019) (“No conveyance,

transfer, or mortgage of real property, or of any interest therein, nor any lease

for a term of 1 year or longer, shall be good and effectual in law or equity

against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and

without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law.”); Soknoh

Partners, LLC v. Audio Visions S., Inc., 319 So. 3d 175, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA

2021) (“To be a bona fide purchaser, a buyer must have ‘had no knowledge

of the claimed interest against the challenged property at the time of the

transaction.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis in original)); McCahill v. Travis

Co., 45 So. 2d 191, 193 (Fla. 1950) (“In construing the above statute we

have held on many occasions that subsequent purchasers, acquiring title

without notice of a prior unrecorded deed, mortgage or transfer of real estate,

or any interest therein, will be protected against such unrecorded instrument,

unless the party claiming thereunder can show that such subsequent

purchaser acquired title with actual notice of such unrecorded conveyance.

The burden of showing such notice by law is placed upon the party claiming

under such unrecorded instrument. The presumption in such a case being

that such subsequent purchaser acquired his title in good faith and without

2 notice of the prior unrecorded conveyance.” (emphasis in original)); Koschler

v. Dean, 642 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“A purchaser, or in this

case a mortgagee, dealing with the record owner of real property may rely

on the chain of title found in official records in the absence of actual

knowledge of an adverse unrecorded right.” (emphasis added)).

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

Related

Koschler v. Dean
642 So. 2d 1119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Faye Sosna v. U.S. Bank, National Association, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faye-sosna-v-us-bank-national-association-etc-fladistctapp-2025.