Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

244 So. 3d 334
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 13, 2018·No. No. 4D17–3824·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

*335Affirmed. The appellant may not attack the underlying foreclosure judgment through appeal of an order granting possession of the property after sale. See Dalrymple, Sr. v. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. , 237 So.3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Appellant was not denied his right of redemption because the right of redemption exists only until the issuance of the certificate of sale, which took place, and certificate of title issued. See § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2017). Additionally, there was no procedural error with issuance of the writ of possession because it was issued after denial of appellant's objection to the sale and after issuance of the certificate of title. See Caplan v. Neumann , 699 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding a writ of possession must be issued after resolution of a timely objection to the sale).

Warner, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 244 So. 3d 334 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

244 So. 3d 334 (Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ELIEZER TAVERAS v. U.S. BANK, N.A., etc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
Cameron v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n
249 So. 3d 786 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)