THANH-THUY THI LE
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATION TRUST CO., AS TRUSTEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2018-10-26
No. 17-2959
264 So. 3d 1007 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2018)

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.


Holding

An order that merely schedules a foreclosure sale is not a final appealable order, and orders denying relief from foreclosure judgment are reviewable on appeal but were properly denied in this case.


Headnotes

[1] An order that merely schedules or resets a foreclosure sale is an interlocutory, administrative step in the judicial sales process and is not a final appealable order.

Previewing 1 of 1 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

Key Quotes

“An order that merely schedules a foreclosure sale is not a final appealable order. Rather, it is a purely administrative, interlocutory step in the judicial sales process.”

The court cites Pridgen v. First Union Bank to explain why the order resetting the foreclosure sale is not appealable.

Facts & Procedural History

Thanh-Thuy Thi Le appeals a 2014 foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. She challenged the trial court's denia…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Thanh-Thuy Thi Le, pro se, challenges (1) the trial court's order denying her motion for relief from a 2014 foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Deutsche

Bank National Trust Company in August 2014, (2) the trial court's order denying rehearing of its denial of the motion for relief from judgment, and (3) the trial court's order granting the bank's motion to reset the foreclosure sale. We affirm the denials of the motion to vacate and the motion for rehearing without further comment. And we dismiss the portion of this appeal that attempts to challenge the order resetting the foreclosure sale as it is not an appealable order. See Pridgen v. First Union Bank, 879

So. 2d 21, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("An order that merely schedules a foreclosure sale is not a final appealable order. Rather, it is a purely administrative, interlocutory step in the judicial sales process.").

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw