Zahra Shipman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledFebruary 19, 2020
Docket3D19-0316
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 19, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-316
Lower Tribunal No. 17-14173
________________
Zahra Shipman,
Appellant,
vs.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, John W.
Thornton, Jr., Judge.
Neustein Law Group, P.A., and Nicole R. Moskowitz, for appellant.
McGuireWoods LLP, and Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Emily Y. Rottmann, and
Kathleen D. Kilbride (Jacksonville), for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Even if it would constitute an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deny a
motion to set aside a foreclosure sale based on an agreement of the parties that settled
the dispute, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny such a motion when the parties
are only negotiating an agreement and have not contracted to it. The cases cited by
the Appellant do not indicate otherwise. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupica, 36
So. 3d 875, 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“There was no basis for the trial court to reject
Wells Fargo’s counsel’s representation, as an officer of the court, that an agreement
had been reached between the parties—particularly where the Lupicas never
disputed such representation.”); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupica, 17 So. 3d 864,
866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Because Wells Fargo’s notice of appeal was filed before
the rendition of a final order, we elect to treat this matter as a premature appeal and
relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of fifteen days for the rendition
of a proper final order.”).
Affirmed.
2