Miller v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. Bank of America, N.A.

229 So. 3d 822

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2017

DocketNo. 4D16-2329

StatusPublished

This text of 229 So. 3d 822 (Miller v. Bank of America, 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

Miller v. Bank of America, N.A., 229 So. 3d 822 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this foreclosure proceeding we affirm the denial of appellant’s post-judgment motion for sanctions against the appellee based on Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (finding that in the absence of an adequate record on appeal an appellate court must affirm an order or judgment). Although the parties filed a stipulation of facts, those facts do not show that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Galasso v. Gargione, 40 So.3d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, the stipulation contained no facts regarding whether the appellee paid previously awarded amounts of sanctions, one of the grounds upon which additional sanctions were sought. Further, the appellant accused the bank of misconduct in proceeding with the loan foreclosure while the appellant was seeking modification and in refusing to give her a payoff figure for her loan. There is simply insufficient evidence within the statement of facts or in this record to show without dispute that the bank acted improperly, so that the denial of sanctions was an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Warner, Levine and Buchanan, Laurie E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In this foreclosure proceeding we affirm the denial of appellant’s post-judgment motion for sanctions against the appellee based on Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (finding that in the absence of an adequate record on appeal an appellate court must affirm an order or judgment). Although the parties filed a stipulation of facts, those facts do not show that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Galasso v. Gargione, 40 So.3d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Here, the stipulation contained no facts regarding whether the appellee paid previously awarded amounts of sanctions, one of the grounds upon which additional sanctions were sought. Further, the appellant accused the bank of misconduct in proceeding with the loan foreclosure while the appellant was seeking modification and in refusing to give her a payoff figure for her loan. There is simply insufficient evidence within the statement of facts or in this record to show without dispute that the bank acted improperly, so that the denial of sanctions was an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Warner, Levine and Buchanan, Laurie E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 So. 3d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-bank-of-america-na-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack