Neuschatz v. Rabin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neuschatz v. Rabin

760 So. 2d 1018, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7220, 2000 WL 763758

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-3367

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 760 So. 2d 1018 (Neuschatz v. Rabin) 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

Neuschatz v. Rabin, 760 So. 2d 1018, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7220, 2000 WL 763758 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure. Based on the contract found by the trial court there was legal consideration to support the note and mortgage. See Bayshore Royal Co. v. Doran Jason Co. of Tampa, Inc., 480 So.2d 651, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). On the cross-appeal, we reverse that portion of the September 28, 1999 Amended Final Judgment of Foreclosure withholding issuance of the writ of possession until the third-party action is resolved. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the premises from the time title vests in the purchaser. See Martorano v. Spicola, 110 Fla. 55, 59, 148 So. 585, 586 (1933); 37 Fla. Jur.2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trusts § 314 (1996). While cross-appellant did not pursue a theory of reformation at trial, those factors that the court could have taken into consideration in ruling on a reformation are proper for the court to consider in any action for a deficiency judgment.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure. Based on the contract found by the trial court there was legal consideration to support the note and mortgage. See Bayshore Royal Co. v. Doran Jason Co. of Tampa, Inc., 480 So.2d 651, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). On the cross-appeal, we reverse that portion of the September 28, 1999 Amended Final Judgment of Foreclosure withholding issuance of the writ of possession until the third-party action is resolved. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the premises from the time title vests in the purchaser. See Martorano v. Spicola, 110 Fla. 55, 59, 148 So. 585, 586 (1933); 37 Fla. Jur.2d, Mortgages and Deeds of Trusts § 314 (1996). While cross-appellant did not pursue a theory of reformation at trial, those factors that the court could have taken into consideration in ruling on a reformation are proper for the court to consider in any action for a deficiency judgment.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded.

FARMER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 So. 2d 1018, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7220, 2000 WL 763758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neuschatz-v-rabin-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack