Court Opinion

ID: 9351985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:03:08.145871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:40.871732
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed January 4, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1283
                       Lower Tribunal No. 16-28934
                          ________________

                         Cedric McIntyre, etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                             CIT Bank, N.A.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

     Law Offices of Daryl L. Jones, P.A., and Faequa A. Khan, for appellant.

    Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, and David
Rosenberg, B.C.S. (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     This appeal arises from a denial of an objection to a sale in a

foreclosure case. We affirm because the objection was untimely.
      The judgment of foreclosure at issue was entered in 2018. The sale of

the property was delayed by borrower’s bankruptcy and other matters. The

court ultimately ordered the sale of the property which occurred on January

18, 2022 for $342,100. On the day of the sale, the personal representative

of the borrower’s estate (hereinafter “the borrower”) filed an objection to the

sale raising only one ground. Without tendering any funds, the borrower

maintained that it had obtained a loan approval from another lender that

would allow it to redeem the property. On January 21, 2022, the clerk issued

its certificate of sale documenting the sale.

      On February 4, 2022, the trial court entered an order on the borrower’s

January 18, 2022 objection “staying issuance of the certificate of sale for 60

days” and directing that the borrower “can use the allotted time to purchase

or   redeem    this    subject   real   property.” “If   after   sixty   (60   days),

Sale/Redemption is not accomplished,” the order provided, “then the stay

shall automatically be lifted, and the prior sale complete without further need

of a court hearing.”

      The borrower never purchased or redeemed the property. Instead, it

raised a series of further objections to the sale, at first referring only generally

to “infirmities” requiring “new advertising and sale” and, only months later,

specifically raising the objection it argues in this appeal, namely that the

                                         2
clerk’s advertisement was defective because, while the legal description of

the property was correct, the advertisement also included a street address

with one digit mistyped. The borrower never claimed the sales price was low

and never established that the mistyped address referred to an actual

existing property. The trial court denied the borrower’s objection and this

appeal followed.

      We do not reach the merits of the borrower’s objection based upon the

alleged defect in the advertisement. Objections to foreclosure sales must be

raised within 10 days of the sale. § 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. The borrower argues

that the stay it obtained extended the time to file further objections. That stay,

however, was not entered to allow the borrower to raise further objections.

Instead, as requested by the borrower, the trial court entered the stay for the

express purpose of allowing the borrower to redeem and purchase the

property, which the borrower never did.

      Affirmed.

                                        3