Yaima Ortiz v. Nexbank

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 28, 2025
Docket3D2024-0759
StatusPublished

This text of Yaima Ortiz v. Nexbank (Yaima Ortiz v. Nexbank) 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
Yaima Ortiz v. Nexbank, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 28, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0759 Lower Tribunal No. 22-13133-CA-01 ________________

Yaima Ortiz, Appellant,

vs.

Nexbank, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley and Gina Beovides, Judges.

Kenzie N. Sadlak, PA and Kenzie N. Sadlak, for appellant.

Aldridge | Pite, LLP and Zachary Ullman (Delray Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096,

1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Gross inadequacy of price alone is not enough to

set aside a foreclosure sale. . . . [H]e presented no evidence of inadequacy,

nor any evidence that the ‘inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake,

fraud or other irregularity in the sale.’”); IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan,

104 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“Thus, it is well settled that ‘[i]n

order to vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court must find: (1) that the

foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly inadequate; and (2) that the

inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud or other irregularity

in the sale.’”); Johnson v. State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Lamontagne, 973

So. 2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“A party may forfeit the right to seek

relief even from a void judgment if the party's actions or statements have had

the effect of ratifying the judgment or conceding its propriety.”); MacDougall

v. Kutina, 798 So. 2d 30, 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“[T]he court was correct in

concluding that the former husband's statement that he had no problem with

paying the rehabilitative alimony and requesting additional time to pay,

amounted to a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Such a submission

is a waiver of any defects in service of process.”).

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

Related

MacDougall v. Kutina
798 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Johnson v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE
973 So. 2d 1236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Indymac Federal Bank FSB v. Hagan
104 So. 3d 1232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Yaima Ortiz v. Nexbank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaima-ortiz-v-nexbank-fladistctapp-2025.