SHERMAN BALCH v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SHERMAN BALCH v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 2022

Docket21-0959

StatusPublished

This text of SHERMAN BALCH v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc. (SHERMAN BALCH v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc.) 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

SHERMAN BALCH v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

SHERMAN BALCH, Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al., Appellee.

No. 4D21-0959

[March 9, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CA5002.

Sherman Balch, Palm City, pro se.

Hallie S. Evans of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Inv. Tr. Servs., LLC v. DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc., 225 So. 3d 833, 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (stating that “[t]he law is well settled that a purchaser pendente lite is not entitled to intervene or otherwise be made a party to the ongoing lawsuit”); Intermediary Fin. Corp. v. McKay, 111 So. 531, 531 (Fla. 1927) (explaining that “[t]his court is committed to the doctrine that a purchaser pendente lite is not entitled to intervene”).

CONNER, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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