Firstbank Puerto Rico d/b/a FirstBank Florida v. Alexander Othon and Sara Othon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Firstbank Puerto Rico d/b/a FirstBank Florida v. Alexander Othon and Sara Othon

190 So. 3d 110, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5855, 2015 WL 1813996

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 2015

Docket4D15-583

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 So. 3d 110 (Firstbank Puerto Rico d/b/a FirstBank Florida v. Alexander Othon and Sara Othon) 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

Firstbank Puerto Rico d/b/a FirstBank Florida v. Alexander Othon and Sara Othon, 190 So. 3d 110, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5855, 2015 WL 1813996 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The day before the scheduled sale of respondents’ property pursuant 'to petitioner’s final judgment of foreclosure, respondents moved to cancel the sale based upon their entering into a listing contract to sell the property and the wife’s poor health. Over the objection of the petitioner bank, the court cancelled the sale and reset it ninety days later. The bank brought this petition for writ of certiorari, claiming that the court departed from the essential requirements of law in cancelling the sale. We agree.

We adopt the reasoning of Republic Federal Bank, N.A. v. Doyle, 19 So.3d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), where the trial court also granted a continuance of a foreclosure sale based upon compassion for the mortgagor. In concluding that this was an abuse of discretion the court said:

Although granting continuances and postponements are, generally speaking, within the. discretion of the trial court, the “ground” of benevolence and compassion (or the claim asserted below that the defendants might be able to arrange for payment of the debt during the extended period until the sale) does not constitute a lawful, cognizable basis for granting relief to one side to the detriment of the other, and thus cannot support the order below: no judicial action of any kind can rest on such a foundation. This is particularly true here because the order contravenes'the terms of the statute that a sale is to be conducted “not less than 20 days or more than 35 days after the date” of the order or judgment.. § 45.031(l)(a), Fla. Stat, (2008).

Id. at 1054 (footnote omitted.)

. Similarly, neither the fact that the respondents in this case listed their property in hopes of obtaining a short sale nor the fact that the wife had medical problems is a ground to cancel the sale. The trial court contravened the statutory direction.

This case is also like Doyle in that the rescheduled sale has been set, and granting this -writ may actually delay it further. Therefore, although we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we deny the writ solely to prevent further delay of the sale. We direct that the sale shall proceed on the assigned date, and no further continuances or cancellations shall occur without the express consent of the petitioner. ■

WARNER, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The day before the scheduled sale of respondents’ property pursuant 'to petitioner’s final judgment of foreclosure, respondents moved to cancel the sale based upon their entering into a listing contract to sell the property and the wife’s poor health. Over the objection of the petitioner bank, the court cancelled the sale and reset it ninety days later. The bank brought this petition for writ of certiorari, claiming that the court departed from the essential requirements of law in cancelling the sale. We agree.

We adopt the reasoning of Republic Federal Bank, N.A. v. Doyle, 19 So.3d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), where the trial court also granted a continuance of a foreclosure sale based upon compassion for the mortgagor. In concluding that this was an abuse of discretion the court said:

Although granting continuances and postponements are, generally speaking, within the. discretion of the trial court, the “ground” of benevolence and compassion (or the claim asserted below that the defendants might be able to arrange for payment of the debt during the extended period until the sale) does not constitute a lawful, cognizable basis for granting relief to one side to the detriment of the other, and thus cannot support the order below: no judicial action of any kind can rest on such a foundation. This is particularly true here because the order contravenes'the terms of the statute that a sale is to be conducted “not less than 20 days or more than 35 days after the date” of the order or judgment.. § 45.031(l)(a), Fla. Stat, (2008).

Id. at 1054 (footnote omitted.)

. Similarly, neither the fact that the respondents in this case listed their property in hopes of obtaining a short sale nor the fact that the wife had medical problems is a ground to cancel the sale. The trial court contravened the statutory direction.

This case is also like Doyle in that the rescheduled sale has been set, and granting this -writ may actually delay it further. Therefore, although we conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we deny the writ solely to prevent further delay of the sale. We direct that the sale shall proceed on the assigned date, and no further continuances or cancellations shall occur without the express consent of the petitioner. ■

WARNER, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 110, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5855, 2015 WL 1813996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firstbank-puerto-rico-dba-firstbank-florida-v-alexander-othon-and-sara-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack