DAVID MUNGER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD T. COLEY AND SUSAN L. COLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
DAVID MUNGER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD T. COLEY AND SUSAN L. COLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
563 So. 2d 215
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1990)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We find that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to set aside the mortgage foreclosure sale. See Maule Industries, Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla.1956); Surratt v. Fleming, 322 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1976); Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Because it is not ripe for judicial review, we do not address the attorney’s fee issue raised in appellee’s cross appeal. See City of Tampa v. Fein, 438 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), receded from on other grounds, Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, NIMMONS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
California Federal Savings AND Loan Assn. v. Coley, 593 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…was no citation of authority for the award. Munger appealed the order setting aside the sale, and California Federal cross-appealed the award of fees. This court affirmed the setting aside of the sale, Munger v. California Federal Savings and Loan, 563 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), but held that the fee issue was not ripe for adjudication in that the order simply found entitlement without actually awarding a fee. Munger at 215. The trial court subsequently entered an order setting an amount to be paid by C…
-
State v. Hunter, 596 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ck, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), on remand, 593 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1992), we believe our original affirmance in Hunter v. State, 518 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), was correct and that our subsequent directions in Hunter v. State, 563 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), were erroneous in view of the ultimate decision of Bostick in the Supreme Court of the United States. We now consider the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress which was entered November 7,1990, and find it to be er…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Maule Indus., Inc. v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 91 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1956)
- City OF Tampa v. Fein, 438 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Rosen v. Hunter, 224 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Emil F. Danciu v. Bennett Cohn, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Stone, 492 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Surratt v. Fleming, 322 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)