Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Worobec

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Worobec

178 So. 3d 971, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18127, 2015 WL 7781609

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-4022

StatusPublished

This text of 178 So. 3d 971 (Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Worobec) 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

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Worobec, 178 So. 3d 971, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18127, 2015 WL 7781609 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), appeals the trial court’s June-6, 2014; order dismissing SPS’s foreclosure action against Robert Worobee and the trial court’s October 1, 2014, order denying SPS’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal. SPS’s complaint was filed in contravention of the automatic stay arising from Worobec’s earlier filing of a petition for bankruptcy.

Actions taken in violation of an automatic stay are “void and without effect” even where there is no actual notice of the stay. McMahon v. Ryan, 964 So.2d 198, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982)); see also Personalized Air Conditioning, Inc. v. C.M. Sys., Inc., 522 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of SPS’s action. Our affirmance is without prejudice to SPS filing a new foreclosure suit.¹

AFFIRMED.

BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), appeals the trial court’s June-6, 2014; order dismissing SPS’s foreclosure action against Robert Worobee and the trial court’s October 1, 2014, order denying SPS’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal. SPS’s complaint was filed in contravention of the automatic stay arising from Worobec’s earlier filing of a petition for bankruptcy.

Actions taken in violation of an automatic stay are “void and without effect” even where there is no actual notice of the stay. McMahon v. Ryan, 964 So.2d 198, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982)); see also Personalized Air Conditioning, Inc. v. C.M. Sys., Inc., 522 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of SPS’s action. Our affirmance is without prejudice to SPS filing a new foreclosure suit.¹

AFFIRMED.

BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 So. 3d 971, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18127, 2015 WL 7781609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/select-portfolio-servicing-inc-v-worobec-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack