WALDMAN
v.
LAQUER FAMILY HOLDINGS
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.
A foreclosure sale may not be set aside for alleged irregularities and technical errors when the moving party introduces no competent substantial evidence, and due process is satisfied when notice is served on counsel of record even if an email address in the service list is incorrect.
[1] A party seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale based on alleged irregularities and technical errors must introduce competent substantial evidence to support the contenti…
[2] Notice to an attorney of record constitutes valid notice to the client for purposes of due process, notwithstanding an incorrect email address in the service list when an…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“[N]otice to the attorney constitutes notice to the client.”
Citing Comprehensive Health Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., the court rejected the due process challenge based on the incorrect email address.
Veronica Waldman sought to set aside a foreclosure sale, alleging dramatic irregularities and technical errors, and challenged the notice of hearing o…
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 Motion To Set Aside Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the circuit court’s final order denying Veronica Waldman’s motion to set aside a foreclosure sale. Ms. Waldman maintains that the foreclosure sale was conducted with “dramatic irregularities” and technical errors, but introduced no competent substantial evidence below, nor any record here, to substantiate that contention. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d
1150 (Fla. 1979).
Ms. Waldman’s second issue on appeal argues that she was not afforded due process regarding a notice of hearing on her objections to the conduct of the sale.
After she failed to appear at the hearing, the trial court denied her objections.
The record discloses that there was indeed an invalid email address used,
“[email protected]” instead of the correct address, “[email protected],” on the service list for a copy intended to be sent to Ms. Waldman. Ms. Waldman’s argument fails, however, because the record further discloses that one law firm for her had withdrawn from representing her, but another attorney of record remained counsel of record and was duly served with the notice. “[N]otice to the attorney constitutes notice to the client.” Comprehensive Health Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto.
Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
The final order is affirmed.
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)
- Comprehensive Health Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 56 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)