M. BARRY SEMLER, APPELLANT,
v.
CITICORP SAVINGS OF FLORIDA, A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
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.
Affirmed deficiency judgment where appellant failed to appear at the hearing despite receiving notice and opportunity to be heard, and did not timely appeal the underlying foreclosure judgment.
A deficiency judgment is properly entered when the defendant receives notice and opportunity to be heard, even if the defendant fails to appear at the hearing.
[1] A deficiency judgment does not violate due process or constitute an abuse of discretion when the defendant receives notice and opportunity to be heard, notwithstanding th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Semler received a deficiency judgment approximately one year after a mortgage foreclosure by Citicorp Savings of Florida. Semler did not app…
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 Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, pro se, has filed a timely appeal from a deficiency judgment entered by the trial court approximately one year after the mortgage foreclosure. Appellant seeks to intertwine matters pertaining to the original mortgage foreclosure with those issues directed toward the entry of the deficiency judgment. However, we are without jurisdiction to consider any arguments directed toward the entry of the original fpreclosure, as no timely appeal was taken from that judgment.
As to the deficiency judgment, appellant argues, in essence, that there was a denial of due process and abuse of discretion by the trial court. The record before us fails to support appellant’s position in either regard. Appellant was clearly given notice of the application for deficiency judgment, and an opportunity to be heard. At oral argument, appellant candidly conceded that he did not appear at the hearing on the deficiency judgment, nor did he make any attempt to seek a continuance, so that he might have more time to travel from California to Fort Lauderdale for purposes of attending the hearing. Accordingly, we find no impropriety in the trial court’s entry of a deficiency judgment, and we therefore affirm.
DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaedeke Holdings, Ltd. v. Mortg. Consultants, Inc., 877 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…Without commenting on the merits of this argument, we find that because that award was not timely appealed, this court is without jurisdiction to review it. See Brown v. State, 661 So. 2d 96, 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Semler v. Citicorp Sav. of Fla., 541 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, we remand this case back to the trial court with instructions that an order should be entered applying the fraudulently transferred assets toward satisfaction of Mortgage Consultants’ May 29, 2003 judgment deb…
-
Bush v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 785 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…jections to a foreclosure sale. Although appellants raise issues with respect to the final judgment of foreclosure, the judgment was not appealed. Therefore, these claims, although unmeritorious, are untimely. See Semler v. Citicorp Sav. of Florida, 541 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). As to appellants’ objections to the sale based upon an inadequate sale price, we affirm because appellants have not shown both a grossly inadequate sales price and inadequacy of the bid resulting from some mistake, fraud,…
-
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Morley, 915 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1990)…its “sound judicial discretion.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 702.06 (West 1976). The exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed absent abuse. Community Bank of Homestead v. Valois, 1990 WL 49845 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. April 24, 1990); Semler v. Citicorp Sav., 541 So. 2d 1369, 1369 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989). Rather than compelling an additional, lengthy procedure, the rationale behind section 702.06 has been described as “being a means of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of an additional suit at law to obtain the bala…