JAMES GOOSBY
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, ETC., ET AL.
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 trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside a foreclosure sale or a motion for rehearing that raises issues that could have been raised earlier.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing that raises an issue which could have been raised in the initial motion o…
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 intelligenceJames Goosby appealed a trial court decision in a foreclosure matter involving The Bank of New York Mellon. The trial court denied Goosby's motion to …
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 Motion To Set Aside Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2471 Lower Tribunal No. 16-29580-CA-01
James Goosby, Appellant,
vs.
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
Louis C. Arslanian (Hollywood), for appellant.
Greenspoon Marder LLP, and Dariel Abrahamy (Boca Raton); The Griffith Law Firm, P.A., and Derek R. Griffith, for appellees.
Before GORDO, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Vogel, 137 So. 3d 491, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“The standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to set aside a foreclosure sale is whether the trial court grossly abused its discretion.”); Beacon Hill Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC, 221 So. 3d 710, 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The standard of review on appeal of a motion for rehearing is abuse of discretion.”); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338, 341 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing which raises an issue that could have, but wasn't, raised in the initial motion or at the initial hearing.”); Grossfeld v. CV Funding, LLC, 432 So. 3d 683, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (stating an evidentiary hearing is not required where there is insufficient dispute regarding “existence, validity, or terms” of settlement agreement).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Prime Prop. & Cas. Ins. Inc. v. Allied Trucking of Fla., Inc., 338 So. 3d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Vogel, 137 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Beacon Hill Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC, 221 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Grossfeld v. CV Funding, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)