Rosenberg v. Bakerman
481 So. 2d 29, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2719, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17240
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 10, 1985·No. No. 85-895·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Based upon appellees’ failure to name and serve the titleholder of the subject property in their mortgage foreclosure action, we reverse. Hubbard v. Highland Realty & Investment Co., 115 Fla. 834, 156 So. 322 (1934); Community Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Wright, 452 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Davanzo v. Resolute Insurance Co., 346 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Chapman v. L & N Grove, Inc., 265 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rosenberg v. Bakerman, 481 So. 2d 29, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2719, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).
481 So. 2d 29 (Rosenberg v. Bakerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chattel Ship. & Inv. v. Brickell Place Condo.
481 So. 2d 29 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)