CARLOS RODRIGUEZ
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., RODRIQUE ANGELICUS SOVEREIGN TRUST DATED 7/16/10, THE OAKS MASTER PROPERTY ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
Carlos Rodriguez appealed a foreclosure judgment entered against him by Bank of America. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred in denying Rodriguez's unopposed motion to continue the trial.
Yes. The trial court erred in denying Rodriguez's unopposed motion to continue the trial, and therefore the final judgment of foreclosure must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
“Concluding that the trial court erred in denying Rodriguez's unopposed motion to continue the trial, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.”
This statement contains the core holding of the appellate court, establishing that the trial court's denial of the unopposed motion to continue was reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos Rodriguez was the subject of a foreclosure action brought by Bank of America, N.A. The case proceeded to trial in Osceola County Circuit Court.…
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.
Rodrique Angelicus Sovereign Trust Dated 7/16/10, or The Oaks Master Property Association, Inc. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Carlos Rodriguez, challenges the final judgment of foreclosure entered
against him and in favor of Appellee, Bank of America, N.A., following trial. Concluding
that the trial court erred in denying Rodriguez’s unopposed motion to continue the trial,
we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings. 1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur. 1 On remand, the trial court should also reconsider its denial of Appellee’s verified
motion for relief from its technical admissions to Appellant’s request for admissions filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Shelton, 223 So. 3d 414, 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (“Rule 1.370 has been liberally interpreted, and there is a ‘strong preference that genuinely disputed claims be decided upon their merits rather than technical rules of default.’” (quoting Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Voorhees, 194 So. 3d 448, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016))).