Thomas v. Bank of New York

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thomas v. Bank of New York

7 So. 3d 574, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1741, 2009 WL 528781

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2009

Docket1D07-1812

StatusPublished

This text of 7 So. 3d 574 (Thomas v. Bank of New York) 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

Thomas v. Bank of New York, 7 So. 3d 574, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1741, 2009 WL 528781 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Christopher Thomas seeks review of a final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure, arguing that he was denied sufficient service of process in the proceeding below. Because appellant filed a responsive pleading without challenging the sufficiency of service or the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him at the “first opportunity,” he waived any defense regarding a defect in service. Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); De Ardila v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 826 So.2d 419, 420 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (mortgagor waived argument alleging insufficiency of service of process of foreclosure action by filing pleadings without challenging service); accord Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b), (h).

The summary judgment for appellee is AFFIRMED.

HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Christopher Thomas seeks review of a final summary judgment of mortgage foreclosure, arguing that he was denied sufficient service of process in the proceeding below. Because appellant filed a responsive pleading without challenging the sufficiency of service or the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him at the “first opportunity,” he waived any defense regarding a defect in service. Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); De Ardila v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 826 So.2d 419, 420 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (mortgagor waived argument alleging insufficiency of service of process of foreclosure action by filing pleadings without challenging service); accord Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b), (h).

The summary judgment for appellee is AFFIRMED.

HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 574, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1741, 2009 WL 528781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-bank-of-new-york-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack