WILLIAM H. CORNING, APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, 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.
William Corning appeals from trial court orders denying his motions to vacate a foreclosure sale and writ of possession. This is Corning's second appeal in the matter; his first appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but he was directed to seek relief in the trial court. The appellate court affirms the trial court's denial of his motions because Corning failed to provide adequate record support or competent evidence of error.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motions. Because Corning failed to cite to the record, provide competent evidence supporting his claims, or include a hearing transcript, he could not demonstrate reversible error.
[1] An appeal filed more than thirty days after the entry of a foreclosure judgment is jurisdictionally untimely.
[2] A party may seek relief from a foreclosure judgment and sale in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek relief in the circuit court from the foreclosure sale and underlying judgment.”
The prior appellate decision directing Corning to pursue relief in the trial court rather than through a late appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 3, 2011, the trial court entered a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure against Corning's property, with a foreclosure sale scheduled fo…
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 Certificate Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant William H. Corning appeals for the second time from orders of the trial court related to a foreclosure judgment and sale of property.
By way of background, on February 3, 2011, the trial court entered a Final Judgment of Mortgage Foreclosure on Appellant’s property and noticed a foreclosure sale for March 22, 2011. The property was then sold. On April 1, 2011, nine days after of the Clerk of Court certified the sale, Appellant appealed to this Court the foreclosure judgment and sale, suggesting that he lacked adequate notice. This Court dismissed his appeal on jurisdictional grounds (the appeal was filed more than thirty days after entry of the foreclosure judgment), but “without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek relief in the circuit court from the foreclosure sale and underlying judgment.” Corning v. Wells Fargo Bank, 73 So.3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). This Court’s order cited cases suggesting that Appellant could seek relief by filing a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Id.
After returning to the trial court, however, Appellant did not move for relief from the foreclosure judgment and sale. Instead, over a period of months, the purchaser of the foreclosed property moved to gain possession. Appellant filed nothing for months, but then on May 29, 2012, he filed motions seeking to vacate both an Order Directing the Clerk to Issue a Writ of Possession and the Certificate of Title issued after sale. Appellant’s motions asserted again his objection to the sale of the property and that he lacked adequate notice because only his no-longer-retained *1280attorney had been served (the docket does not show that a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel was ever filed). Appellant’s motions were not sworn, verified, or supported by affidavits or other competent evidence. After a hearing, the court denied the motions.
On appeal, Appellant now renews his challenge to the sale, claims insufficient notice, argues that the property sale price was grossly inadequate, and claims that he should have received an evidentiary hearing. However, he cites to nothing in the record to support his arguments. In fact, his brief does not cite the record even once. And further impeding his cause, Appellant did not include a transcript of the trial court’s hearing in the record from which he might demonstrate error. In sum, Appellant can point to no competent evidence tending to show that the trial court committed reversible error. Thus, we must affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).
VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Corning v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 73 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Eaton v. City OF Winter Haven & PGCS, 73 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)