STRONG PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, SAMUEL CARLILE, HERITAGE KEY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
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.
When two trial judges issue conflicting orders on the same motion, the appellate court must reverse both orders and remand for the trial court to resolve the conflict.
[1] When two different trial judges issue conflicting orders on the same motion, an appellate court must reverse both orders and remand for the trial court to resolve the con…
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 intelligenceStrong Portfolio Holdings sought to intervene and vacate a foreclosure judgment and cancel sale. The original trial judge, after a hearing and taking …
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 Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
STRONG PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-796
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, SAMUEL CARLILE,
HERITAGE KEY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Appellees. ________________________________/
Opinion filed December 21, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Mike Murphy and Kevin Weiss, Judges.
Richard H. Weisberg, of Law Offices of Richard H. Weisberg, P.A., Sanford, for Appellant.
Adam M. Topel, of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. No Appearance for other Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Strong Portfolio Holdings, LLC, appeals two final orders on its supplemental motion to intervene and vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and cancel sale. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
2
Two different trial judges entered conflicting orders on Strong Portfolio’s supplemental motion to intervene. The original trial judge considered the matter at a hearing, took it under advisement, and ordered the parties to submit memoranda of law. While the matter was under advisement, the original trial judge was transferred to a different division. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, the original trial judge entered an order indicating an evidentiary hearing was necessary on Strong Portfolio’s supplemental motion to intervene. The next day, not realizing that the original trial judge had entered an order setting the matter for an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge now assigned to the case denied the supplemental motion to intervene. Before the trial court could sort out the matter, Strong Portfolio filed its notice of appeal in order to preserve its appellate rights.
It is clear that the orders are in conflict. Hence, we reverse both orders and remand the cause with instructions for the trial court to resolve the conflict. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.