Haren v. Sundie

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haren v. Sundie

233 So. 2d 417, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 1970

DocketNo. 69-678

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 So. 2d 417 (Haren v. Sundie) 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

Haren v. Sundie, 233 So. 2d 417, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6678 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action. The trial court entered a summary final judgment [418]*418for the appellee which was reversed on appeal. See Haren v. Sundie, Fla.App. 1969, 219 So.2d 731. Prior to the filing of that appeal the mortgaged property was sold pursuant to the summary final judgment of foreclosure. Thereafter the trial court tried the issue made by the defendants’ answer and entered a second judgment for the plaintiff appellee but did not set aside the sale made pursuant to the summary judgment, which was reversed.

On this appeal the defendants urge that the final judgment should have ordered a sale of the property so that they might exercise their right of redemption. It is apparent that a sale pursuant to a judgment which has been reversed is not a valid sale. See Housing Authority of the City of Miami v. Macho, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 916.

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a final judgment of foreclosure and to proceed thereon in accordance with established procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action. The trial court entered a summary final judgment [418]*418for the appellee which was reversed on appeal. See Haren v. Sundie, Fla.App. 1969, 219 So.2d 731. Prior to the filing of that appeal the mortgaged property was sold pursuant to the summary final judgment of foreclosure. Thereafter the trial court tried the issue made by the defendants’ answer and entered a second judgment for the plaintiff appellee but did not set aside the sale made pursuant to the summary judgment, which was reversed.

On this appeal the defendants urge that the final judgment should have ordered a sale of the property so that they might exercise their right of redemption. It is apparent that a sale pursuant to a judgment which has been reversed is not a valid sale. See Housing Authority of the City of Miami v. Macho, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So.2d 916.

Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a final judgment of foreclosure and to proceed thereon in accordance with established procedure.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 So. 2d 417, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haren-v-sundie-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack