Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Appellant, v. Michael Tessenear, Cary L. Tessenear, and Steven K. Jonas, as Trustee of the 4785 Oakfield Circle Trust, Dated, February 28, 2006, Appellees.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, appeals the order denying its motion to add mobile home information to the trial court's summary final judgment and certificate of title issued following judicial sale of the subject foreclosed property.1 We reverse.
For reasons discussed in our opinion in the companion appeal in case number 5D2025-1687, we reversed the underlying final judgment of foreclosure and remanded for further proceedings.2 Because the final judgment has been reversed, the certificate of title issued subsequent to the foreclosure sale required thereby is no longer of any legal force or effect. As a result, the order subject of Carrington's otherwise meritorious appeal in this case is due to be reversed.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Carrington's motion to add mobile home information to the trial court's summary final judgment and resulting certificate of title and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.
FOOTNOTES
1. No appellee has made an appearance or filed a brief in this appeal.
2. The issue in 5D2025-1687 involves the trial court's dismissal of Carrington's claim for reformation of the description of the subject property seeking to include a more precise legal metes and bounds description. Here, the issue appealed by Carrington is the trial court's denial of its request to add to the legal description the 2000 mobile home currently affixed to the property and running with the secured land. While the issues in the appeals are different, each appeal is born from the same summary final judgment.
Per Curiam.
Jay, C.J., and Soud and Boatwright, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D2025-2502
Decided: August 14, 2026
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)