STRONG PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC vs GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, SAMUEL CARLILE, HERITAGE KEY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STRONG PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D18-796 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, SAMUEL CARLILE, HERITAGE KEY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 21, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Mike Murphy and Kevin Weiss, Judges. Richard H. Weisberg, of Law Offices of Richard H. Weisberg, P.A., Sanford, for Appellant. Adam M. Topel, of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. No Appearance for other Appellees. PER CURIAM. Strong Portfolio Holdings, LLC, appeals two final orders on its supplemental motion to intervene and vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and cancel sale. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Two different trial judges entered conflicting orders on Strong Portfolio’s supplemental motion to intervene. The original trial judge considered the matter at a hearing, took it under advisement, and ordered the parties to submit memoranda of law. While the matter was under advisement, the original trial judge was transferred to a different division. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, the original trial judge entered an order indicating an evidentiary hearing was necessary on Strong Portfolio’s supplemental motion to intervene. The next day, not realizing that the original trial judge had entered an order setting the matter for an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge now assigned to the case denied the supplemental motion to intervene. Before the trial court could sort out the matter, Strong Portfolio filed its notice of appeal in order to preserve its appellate rights. It is clear that the orders are in conflict. Hence, we reverse both orders and remand the cause with instructions for the trial court to resolve the conflict. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
