LORALEE BUCHANAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MORTON ADLER, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD GAINES AND KATHERINE J. GAINES, 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.
A foreclosure purchaser who is a creditor in the action cannot recover from the mortgagor payments made on a prior mortgage after the foreclosure sale, even though the purchaser was a party to the foreclosure action.
Payments made by a foreclosure purchaser to reduce an indebtedness on a prior mortgage after decree and foreclosure sale are not recoverable from the mortgagor, regardless of whether the purchaser was a party to the foreclosure action.
[1] A judgment creditor who purchases property at a foreclosure sale acquires the same rights and protections as a stranger to the action and cannot recover payments made on…
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 intelligenceA foreclosure purchaser who was a creditor and party to the foreclosure action made payments on a prior mortgage after acquiring the property at the f…
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 Judgment Creditor cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
“Payments in reduction of an indebtedness on a prior mortgage, made by foreclosure purchaser after decree and foreclosure sale, are not recoverable from the mortgagor.” Miller v. Stavros, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965);1 see Patron v. American Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville, 382 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Horne v. Smith, 368 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Provident Nat’l Bank v. Thunderbird Assoc., 364 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We therefore reverse the final judgment. Reversed and remanded.
. The trial court attempted to distinguish Miller v. Stavros, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), on the ground that the purchaser in this case was a party to the foreclosure action while the successful bidder in Miller was a stranger to the action. The final judgment states “[t]his is not a situation where a bidder, who was not otherwise a party acquired property at a foreclosure sale and was prevented from recovering sums which he paid on a prior mortgage after the sale." That the purchaser in this case is a creditor does not distinguish Miller from the case before us. "When the judgment creditor purchases property at sheriffs sale under execution, ... he stands in the same position and acquires the same rights and protections which a stranger to the record would acquire by being the successful bidder and purchaser at such sale.” City of Sanford v. Ashton, 131 Fla. 759, 762-63, 179 So. 765, 767 (1938).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. Baisley, 593 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…nd the supporting reasons stated in Judge Nesbitt’s opinion. I wish to articulate, however, my own understanding of the underlying rule of law applicable to the present issue as it has developed in recent cases of this court. See Pintado v. Leggett, 545 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (mother permitted to move with child to Virginia); Landa v. Landa, 539 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same; Chile); Matilla v. Matilla, 474 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same; Michigan); Anderson v. Anderson, 461 So. 2d 130 (Fla.…
-
Hill v. Fontaine Sallis Hill, Jr., 548 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…benefit Daniel by removing him from this atmosphere. Therefore, we find that the trial court’s order denying Regina the right to return to Alabama and requiring her to reside in the four-county South Florida area was error. See Pintado v. Leggett, 545 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), citing DeCamp v. Hein, 541 So. 2d at 711; Bachman v. Bachman, 539 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Matilla, 474 So. 2d at 306. Accordingly, the order denying Regina the right to relocate Daniel to Alabama is reversed. The petiti…1 / 2
-
Zugda v. Gomez, 553 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ations omitted). The law in Florida is clear that in the absence of compelling circumstances the custodial parent’s move to a foreign state is not a substantial change of circumstances which would support a change of custody. See Pintado v. Leggett, 545 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court improperly denied former wife right to relocate to Virginia with children where former wife had family and friends in Virginia, where she could reside with her parents, where she had a job waiting for her, where move…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Sanford v. Augustus T. Ashton, 131 Fla. 759 (Fla. 1938)
- Provident Nat'l Bank v. Thunderbird Assocs., 364 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Horne v. Smith, 368 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Patron v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 382 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Elliot L. Miller v. Manelous Stavros In Bankruptcy of Edward J. Kubay and Patricia Kubay, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Zeiters v. State, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)