ATRIO CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., JUSTO ATRIO, SR., JUSTO A. ATRIO AND GEORGE ATRIO, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHEAST BANK, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the entry of a summary judgment of foreclosure was not erroneous despite a pending counterclaim, and that rulings made by a judge who later recused himself were also not in error.
Appellants, mortgagors and guarantors, appealed a summary final judgment of foreclosure. The appeal raised three issues: the entry of summary judgment…
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 Recusal Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, mortgagors and guarantors, appeal a summary final degree of foreclosure. The only points presented for reversal are the entry of the summary judgment while a counterclaim was pending, the entry of orders by a judge who subsequently recused himself and the validity of discovery orders. Norris v. Edwin W. Peck, Inc., 381 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Truxell v. Truxell, 259 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). No other points were presented for review and therefore any issue relating to other rulings are waived.
We find no error in the entry of the summary judgment on the note and the mortgage, notwithstanding the pending counterclaim.1 Reliance Forwarding Co. v. Nilson Van & Storage, 387 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Davar Corporation v. Tropic Land Improvement Corporation, 330 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Nor do we find error in the trial judge’s ruling on matters he had previously heard, notwithstanding a subsequent order of disqualification. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Coastal Petroleum Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 378 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Lastly, no abuse of discretion has been shown in the order relating to the disclosure matter. Burroughs Corporation v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Abelson v. Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Crystal Springs Water Company v. Atchison, 267 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
Therefore the matters under review are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The trial court has stayed the Foreclosure Judgment “pending further order of the court”. It is assumed that this order will stay in effect pending the determination of the counterclaim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Davar Corp. v. Tropic Land Improvement Corp., 330 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil OIL Corp., 378 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Abelson v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 329 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Truxell v. Truxell, 259 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Reliance Forwarding Co. v. Nilson VAN & Storage, 387 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Crystal Springs Water Co. v. Burrell G. Atchison and his wife, 267 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Norris v. Edwin W. Peck, Inc., 381 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)