Prater v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 866 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Prater v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 866 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 213 Linda M. Prater, in proper person. Shapiro & Fishman, Deerfield Beach, and Susan Minor, for appellee. Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM.…1 citing caseopening of page *213 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • YEMC Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Inter Ser, U.S.A., Inc., 884 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).published
    Registration Sys., Inc., 866 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Ingorvaia v. Horton, 816 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Cueto v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 791 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Indian River Farms v. YBF Partners, 777 So.2d 1…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Linda M. PRATER, Appellant,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.
3D03-1727.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 25, 2004.
Published opinion
866 So. 2d 212
2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2141
2004 WL 360862
Levy, Gersten, and Shepherd.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

[*213] Linda M. Prater, in proper person.

Shapiro & Fishman, Deerfield Beach, and Susan Minor, for appellee.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and SHEPHERD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Linda M. Prater brings this appeal from an Order Ratifying Clerk's Sale and Directing Issuance of Certificate of Title and Denying Defendant's Objection to Sale. Although we are not unsympathetic to appellant's rendering of her factual plight, we nevertheless affirm. In order to vacate a foreclosure sale, the trial court must find (1) that the foreclosure sale bid was grossly or startlingly inadequate; and (2) that the inadequacy of the bid resulted from some mistake, fraud, or other irregularity in the sale. Mody v. California Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016, 1017-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citing Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So.2d 575, 577 (Fla.1966)). In this case, appellant is unable to meet these legal requirements. Accordingly, the order under review is hereby affirmed.