White v. Greymar Associates, LLC

208 So. 3d 220, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16674
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 2016·No. No. 3D16-617·Published

Opinion

EMAS, J.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment, as well as the subsequent final judgment of foreclosure, each entered in favor of appellee, upon its determination that appellee was a bona fide purchaser for value, and because there was no evidence establishing that, at the time appellee acquired its mortgage interest, it had constructive or actual notice of the existence of an unrecorded agreement, upon which appellant relies for the contention that appellant had a previously-acquired and outstanding interest in the property. See § 695.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Gabel v. Drewrys Ltd., U.S.A., Inc., 68 So.2d 372 (Fla.1953); Warner v. Watson, 35 Fla. 402, 17 So. 654 (1895). We also find no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to stay execution of the final judgment.1

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

White v. Greymar Associates, LLC, 208 So. 3d 220, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16674 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

208 So. 3d 220 (White v. Greymar Associates, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gabel v. Drewrys Limited
68 So. 2d 372 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Warner v. Watson
35 Fla. 402 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1895)