5725 LAGORCE PARTNERS, LLC
v.
5AIF MAPLE 2 LLC
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 sale will not be set aside for trifling reasons when the complaining party had notice of the pending action and an opportunity to object.
[1] A sale will not be set aside for trifling reasons or matters that should have been raised by the complaining party before the sale when that party had notice of the pendi…
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“it is essential that no sale be set aside for trifling reasons, or on account of matters which ought to have been attended to by the complaining party prior thereto”
Explaining the standard for setting aside sales and the importance of parties raising objections timely
The case involved a dispute where the appellant had notice of a pending action but failed to raise timely objections.…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Tanis v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 289 So. 3d 517, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“‘[I]t is essential that no sale be set aside for trifling reasons, or on account of matters which ought to have been attended to by the complaining party prior thereto,’ as appellants were apprised of the pendency of the action, thus afforded an opportunity to object, we ascertain no abuse of discretion in the ruling of the trial court”) (quoting Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason, 145 U.S. 349, 356 (1892)). See also Volynsky v. Park Tree Invs. 21, LLC, 322 So. 3d 714, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[T]he trial court afforded Volynsky both notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, satisfying the essential elements of due process”) (citing § 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2021)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason, 145 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1892)
- Tanis v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 289 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Volynsky v. Park Tree Invs. 21, LLC, 322 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)