Hoffman v. BankUnited, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoffman v. BankUnited, N.A.

137 So. 3d 1039, 2014 WL 627020, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 2014

DocketNo. 2D12-6255

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 137 So. 3d 1039 (Hoffman v. BankUnited, N.A.) 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

Hoffman v. BankUnited, N.A., 137 So. 3d 1039, 2014 WL 627020, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Arthur P. Hoffman appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of BankUnited, FSB, and raises four issues. As to the three issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the final judgment, we conclude that Hoffman is not entitled to relief and affirm without discussion. On the fourth issue, we agree that the foreclosure sale of the property must be set aside because the sale was conducted while Hoffman’s timely motion for rehearing was pending. See Wollman v. Levy, 489 So.2d 1239, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we vacate the foreclosure sale. Because the trial court disposed of the rehearing motion some time after the sale, the court may again order the foreclosure sale of the property on remand.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.

DAVIS, C.J., and SLEET, J., concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Arthur P. Hoffman appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of BankUnited, FSB, and raises four issues. As to the three issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the final judgment, we conclude that Hoffman is not entitled to relief and affirm without discussion. On the fourth issue, we agree that the foreclosure sale of the property must be set aside because the sale was conducted while Hoffman’s timely motion for rehearing was pending. See Wollman v. Levy, 489 So.2d 1239, 1239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we vacate the foreclosure sale. Because the trial court disposed of the rehearing motion some time after the sale, the court may again order the foreclosure sale of the property on remand.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.

DAVIS, C.J., and SLEET, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 1039, 2014 WL 627020, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-bankunited-na-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack