TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Semler v. Citicorp Sav. of Florida

Semler v. Citicorp Sav. of Fla., 541 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 3, 1989
Docket
No. 87-2795
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
541 So. 2d 13691989 WL 43298

Opinion — Per Curiam

541 So.2d 1369 (1989)

M. Barry SEMLER, Appellant,

v.

CITICORP SAVINGS OF FLORIDA, a Federal Savings and Loan Association, Appellee.

No. 87-2795.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 1989.

M. Barry Semler, Santa Barbara, Cal., pro se.

Anne M. McCormick, Don A. Lynn and John E. Meagher of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for appellee.

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 foreclosure, 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 *1370 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 22001: 12004: 119902026peak 1990 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Morley915 F.2d 1517 (3d Cir. 1990)
  2. Gaedeke Holdings v. Mortgage Consultants877 So. 2d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Morley915 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1990)
  4. Bush v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.785 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Most recent

  1. Gaedeke Holdings v. Mortgage Consultants877 So. 2d 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
  2. Bush v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.785 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Morley915 F.2d 1517 (3d Cir. 1990)
  4. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Morley915 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list