REGAN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
VAL-RO, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Regan, Inc. appealed a trial court's order staying a foreclosure sale for ninety days. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the stay because Regan would be prejudiced by the delay and the validity of the foreclosure judgment was unchallenged.
The trial court abused its discretion in staying the foreclosure sale. Although trial courts have broad discretion in granting stays, the circumstances here—including Regan's prejudice from the delay, the risk of the first mortgage foreclosure overtaking Regan's judgment, and Val-Ro's failure to own all contracted property—required reversal.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a stay of a foreclosure sale when the party seeking the stay has not appealed the final judgment of foreclosure.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a stay of a foreclosure sale when the property to be sold is subject to a prior mortgage foreclosure action that could ove…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although a trial court has broad discretion in granting stays, Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert, denied, 351 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1977); Air Comfort Mechanical, Inc. v. Simmons, 252 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), we hold that in the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion.”
Establishes the standard for review of stay orders and applies it to find abuse of discretion here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRegan obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against Val-Ro, Ltd. in the amount of $61,000. Val-Ro had executed a contract to sell the subject prope…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice From Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Regan, Inc. has appealed a trial court order staying a foreclosure sale. Regan obtained a final judgment of foreclosure in the amount of $61,000 and contends the trial court abused its discretion when it granted appellee’s emergency motion for a ninety-day stay of the sale.1 We agree and reverse.
The trial court, aware that Val-Ro had executed a contract to sell the subject property for $200,000, apparently sought to afford appellees the opportunity to complete the sale which was conditioned upon investigation concerning adequacy of title and suitability for the type of development contemplated by the buyer. Regan argued that it would be prejudiced by the delay since a foreclosure action had recently been brought by the first mortgagee.
We agree that Regan was prejudiced by the stay and that the foreclosure action pertaining to the first mortgage could overtake Regan’s prior judgment.
In light of circumstances disclosing that Val-Ro did not own all the property it had agreed to sell and that the buyer, under the terms of Val-Ro’s contract, was able to withdraw from its obligations if it found the property unsuitable, we find the trial court erred in staying the foreclosure sale.
We note that appellees took no appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure, and its validity remains unchallenged. Although a trial court has broad discretion in granting stays, Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert, denied, 351 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1977); Air Comfort Mechanical, Inc. v. Simmons, 252 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), we hold that in the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion. See Neale v. Aycock, supra; Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). We therefore reverse the trial court’s order. Time for filing petition for rehearing is reduced to three days from the date of this order. .
The trial court’s order exceeded the requested ninety-day stay. The February 6, 1981 foreclosure sale was stayed until June 1, 1981.
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree that the trial court’s stay of the foreclosure sale to afford Val-Ro, Ltd. an opportunity to sell the property and realize $100,000 in equity constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, particularly where the only possible prejudice to Regan is “that the [pending] foreclosure action pertaining to the first mortgage could overtake Regan’s prior judgment,” a prejudice which has not yet occurred, may never occur, and, if imminent, one which could be averted by timely action of the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gesco, Inc. v. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc., 414 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…the trial court’s post judgment order staying execution upon its awards of attorneys fees and costs. A motion for stay under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro Ltd., 396 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Having reviewed the record, we are unable to conclude that the court’s order granting the stay of execution was an abuse of its discretion. The order is therefore affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings…
-
Ivory Wilcox and Ana Lee Wilcox v. Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd., 619 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…subsequent action pending prepayment of costs was not within discretionary powers of trial court).2 We recognize that under Florida law a trial court has broad discretion to order stays in the proceedings before it, see Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd., 396 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert, denied, 351 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1977); Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d) provides for the st…
-
Zola Klein v. The Royale Grp., Ltd., 524 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…iorari, Kahn v. Milon, 332 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Paley v. Cocoa Masonry, Inc., 354 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Stein v. Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., 287 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) or by non-final appeal. Regan, Inc. v. Val-Ro, Ltd., 396 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). It appears that the better view is that the stay of order refusing to vacate same should be reviewed by non-final appeal and tested by the same principles as th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Price v. Hernando Beach, Inc., 286 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- AIR Comfort Mech., Inc. v. E. E. "Gene" Simmons & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)