Hoyt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoyt v. State

810 So. 2d 1007, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2066, 2002 WL 271193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 2002

DocketNo. 4D01-3904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 810 So. 2d 1007 (Hoyt v. State) 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

Hoyt v. State, 810 So. 2d 1007, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2066, 2002 WL 271193 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this appeal of an order denying appellant’s objections to a foreclosure sale. The first three issues appellant raises relate to a hearing before the St. Lucie County Code Enforcement Board which took place in May, 1991, resulting in a fine and a lien. Those alleged errors had to be appealed in 1991 to the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. See § 162.11, Fla. Stat. (2001). An appeal now is untimely. The remaining issue was determined in an earlier final judgment of fore[1008]*1008closure which appellant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed because he did not pursue it. We can only review the order denying appellant’s objection to the foreclosure sale and find no error. We accordingly affirm.

WARNER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this appeal of an order denying appellant’s objections to a foreclosure sale. The first three issues appellant raises relate to a hearing before the St. Lucie County Code Enforcement Board which took place in May, 1991, resulting in a fine and a lien. Those alleged errors had to be appealed in 1991 to the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. See § 162.11, Fla. Stat. (2001). An appeal now is untimely. The remaining issue was determined in an earlier final judgment of fore[1008]*1008closure which appellant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed because he did not pursue it. We can only review the order denying appellant’s objection to the foreclosure sale and find no error. We accordingly affirm.

WARNER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

810 So. 2d 1007, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2066, 2002 WL 271193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack