BAHAD v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB (2019)

Gabriela Bahad (“Ms. Bahad”) appeals from a final judgment of foreclosure and other orders. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Following our review of the record on appeal, we affirm the final judgment of foreclosure, concluding that the appellee established its standing to foreclose the mortgage, which has been in default since June 2010, and that the mortgage and note were executed by Ms. Bahad's former husband.¹ Further, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ms. Bahad's counsel's ore tenus motion to continue and reschedule the final hearing where the trial court had granted counsel's prior numerous requests to continue the final hearing and the instant request was made by counsel moments prior to the commencement of the final hearing. See Ramos v. Ventures Tr., 157 So. 3d 455, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“The standard of review for the denial of a motion for continuance is abuse of discretion.”). We also find no error in the trial court's denial of Ms. Bahad's motion to vacate orders entered by another judge prior to her recusal. Finally, the remaining arguments raised by Ms. Bahad do not merit discussion. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ms. Bahad's former husband was a named defendant below, but is not a party to this appeal.

HENDON, J.