Prater v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., 866 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
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.
Strongest positive: YEMC Construction & Development, Inc. v. Inter Ser, U.S.A., Inc. (fladistctapp, 2004-10-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) YEMC Construction & Development, Inc. v. Inter Ser, U.S.A., Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
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 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." First Union Realty Investment Corp. v. Gillis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Enterprises, Inc. v. Murphy, 575 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ren-Del Enterprises, Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Prater v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 866 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); U-M Publishing, Inc. v. Home News Publishing Co., 279 So.2d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Linda M. PRATER, Appellant,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.
3D03-1727.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 25, 2004.
866 So. 2d 212
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.