WEN LIU
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
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 final judgment of foreclosure and sanctions imposed for failure to attend a deposition are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are affirmed when supported by the record.
[1] A trial court's final judgment of foreclosure is reviewed for an abuse of discretion when based on factual findings or an order of default.
[2] Appellate review is confined to the record on appeal, and jurisdiction does not extend to unconsolidated cases.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWen Liu was the subject of a foreclosure action brought by the University of Miami in Miami-Dade County. Liu failed to attend a deposition and was ord…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
Wen Liu, in proper person. Isicoff Ragatz and Eric D. Isicoff and Matthew L. Lines and Christopher M. Yannuzzi, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final, in rem, judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of the appellee, the University of Miami, and the trial court’s order requiring the appellant, Wen Liu, to pay $1,800.00 in expenses for failure to attend a deposition under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(h)(1), without discussion. See Gonzalez v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 276 So. 3d 332, 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“To the extent the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure ‘is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.’” (quoting Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC, 45 So. 3d
889, 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))); Robles v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 255 So. 3d 986, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Foreclosure judgments based on an order of default are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc.
v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (reviewing for abuse of discretion imposition of expenses under rule 1.310 when party giving notice of taking deposition fails to attend). To the extent Liu seeks review of orders entered in another related, but unconsolidated case, lower tribunal number 2018-006518-CA-01, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“It is axiomatic that appellate review is confined to the record on appeal.”). Having upheld the final foreclosure judgment, we note that the University of Miami has commendably represented that after jurisdiction returns to the trial court,
it is prepared to issue a satisfaction of judgment.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Verneret v. Foreclosure Advisors, LLC, 45 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- DELTA Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Robles v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assoc., 255 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)