Murciano v. Jayan Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murciano v. Jayan Corp.

599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6231, 1992 WL 123431

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1992

DocketNo. 92-73

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 284 (Murciano v. Jayan Corp.) 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

Murciano v. Jayan Corp., 599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6231, 1992 WL 123431 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs in a quiet title action from an adverse final summary judgment. It appears that the plaintiffs’ condominium was sold to the defendant herein for nonpayment of real property taxes. Based on the circumstances of this case, we are unpersuaded that the admitted statutory compliance of notice to the plaintiffs of the tax deed sale herein violated the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. §§ 197.502(4)(a), 197.-522(l)(a); Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla.1975), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803, 97 S.Ct. 34, 50 L.Ed.2d 63 (1976); D.R.L., Inc. v. Murphy, 508 So.2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1277 (Fla.1987); Weiss v. Prudential Enters., Inc., 387 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Stubbs v. Cummings, 336 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); cf. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs in a quiet title action from an adverse final summary judgment. It appears that the plaintiffs’ condominium was sold to the defendant herein for nonpayment of real property taxes. Based on the circumstances of this case, we are unpersuaded that the admitted statutory compliance of notice to the plaintiffs of the tax deed sale herein violated the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. §§ 197.502(4)(a), 197.-522(l)(a); Williams v. Jones, 326 So.2d 425 (Fla.1975), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803, 97 S.Ct. 34, 50 L.Ed.2d 63 (1976); D.R.L., Inc. v. Murphy, 508 So.2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1277 (Fla.1987); Weiss v. Prudential Enters., Inc., 387 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Stubbs v. Cummings, 336 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); cf. Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 284, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6231, 1992 WL 123431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murciano-v-jayan-corp-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack