CAROL A. CHIHOCKY AND ANTHONY B. CHIHOCKY, APPELLANT,
v.
ERA MAE THOMAS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Setoff cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion for a continuance. We cannot address appellant’s argument regarding the denial of her motion to set aside the foreclosure sale because no notice of appeal was filed with regard to that order. Appellant also contends the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment on appellee’s foreclosure complaint without considering her affirmative defenses or counterclaim. While we affirm the summary judgment insofar as the foreclosure itself is concerned, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether or how the court ruled on appellee’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim in which appellant sought, among other things, a setoff. None of the orders entered address this issue. Therefore we REVERSE and REMAND for clarification of the court’s ruling on appellant’s counterclaim. In all other respects we AFFIRM.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…tion for burglary, the allegation of ownership of the conveyance must be proven as alleged in the detention petition or information, since it is a material element of the crime. In Interest of M.E., 370 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla.1979). See D.P. v. State, 656 So. 2d 286, 286-287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As the State faded to prove the essential element of ownership of the burglarized vehicle, L.D.S.’s adjudication of delinquency for burglary and petit theft must…