The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XL
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

Chapter 702
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES AND STATUTORY LIENS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 702.04

702.04 Mortgaged lands in different counties.—When a mortgage includes lands, railroad track, right-of-way, or terminal facilities and station grounds, lying in two or more counties, it may be foreclosed in any one of said counties, and all proceedings shall be had in that county as if all the mortgaged land, railroad track, right-of-way, or terminal facilities and station grounds lay therein, except that notice of the sale must be published in every county wherein any of the lands, railroad track, right-of-way, or terminal facilities and station grounds to be sold lie. After final disposition of the suit, the clerk of the circuit court shall prepare and forward a certified copy of the decree of foreclosure and sale and of the decree of confirmation of sale to the clerk of the circuit court of every county wherein any of the mortgaged lands, railroad tracks, right-of-way, or terminal facilities and station grounds lie, to be recorded in the foreign judgment book of each such county, and the costs of such copies and of the record thereof shall be taxed as costs in the cause.

History.—RS 1989; s. 1, ch. 4420, 1895; GS 2503; s. 1, ch. 7339, 1917; RGS 3846; CGL 5749.

F.S. 702.04 on Google Scholar

F.S. 702.04 on Casetext

Amendments to 702.04

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 702.04

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 702.04.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LUCIDO, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

. . . . § 702.04[1][a] (stating that “it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to exclude expert testimony . . .

MILWARD J. v. RUST- OLEUM CORPORATION,, 820 F.3d 469 (1st Cir. 2016)

. . . Id; § 702.04[l][c], at 702-57. • An expert can rely, then, on “clinical instinct” — i.e., “what experience . . .

B B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (U.S. 2015)

. . . . § 2.116(b); TTAB Manual § 702.04(a), just as it did in the infringement action. . . .

HARRIS, v. SPINE, An, 39 F. Supp. 3d 846 (S.D. Miss. 2014)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04(l)(b) (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed.1997)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. McCLUSKEY,, 954 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D.N.M. 2013)

. . . Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n. 14 (5th Cir.1994); 4 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. WEN CHYU LIU,, 716 F.3d 159 (5th Cir. 2013)

. . . BeRGER, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04(l)(a) (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 1997). . . . Id. § 702.04(l)(b). B. . . .

M. FRYM, v. FLAGSHIP COMMUNITY BANK R. III IV a N. A., 96 So. 3d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 702.04, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . lacks subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose on that mortgage because the plain language of section 702.04 . . . agree with the trial court’s reasoning and hold that this case does fall under the umbrella .of section 702.04 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALBERTELLI, v. v. v. a k a, 687 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2012)

. . . McCormick on Evidence § 13, at 78 (6th ed. 2006); 4 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04 . . .

In LIVE CONCERT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. J. V. CV- SVW VBK A. V. CV- SVW VBK, 863 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

. . . McLaughlin, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[6], at 702-68.9 (Matthew Bender 2d ed. 2011) (“[E]ven . . .

WOLK, v. KODAK IMAGING NETWORK, INC., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

. . . generosity extends to substantive as well as formal qualifications.” 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 702.04 . . .

RAMBUS INC. v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. Co. L. P. U. S. A. v. Co. L. P. v., 254 F.R.D. 597 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

. . . See 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[l][b]. . . .

M. GALLAGHER, v. SOUTHERN SOURCE PACKAGING, LLC,, 568 F. Supp. 2d 624 (E.D.N.C. 2008)

. . . Weinstein et al., Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04 (2d ed. 2002) (“[T]he court must determine whether . . .

UNITED STATES v. COOK, v. O, 261 F. App'x 52 (9th Cir. 2007)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[6] (Joseph M. . . .

TIFFANY NJ INC. v. eBAY, INC., 576 F. Supp. 2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Weinstein, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[l][c] (2d ed. 2006) (“A witness can qualify as an expert . . .

BOWERS, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,, 537 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (M.D. Ga. 2007)

. . . Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734 (3rd Cir.2000); see generally 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04(l)(b) . . .

COOK, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Colo. 2006)

. . . Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1526 (10th Cir.1995); Weinstein, § 702.04[l][a] (summarizing cases). . . . John Deere Co., 935 F.2d 1090, 1100 (10th Cir.1991); see generally Weinstein, § 702.04[l][a]. . . .

PENTON, v. INTERCREDIT BANK, N. A., 943 So. 2d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The Legislature, however, has created an exception to the local action rule, codified at section 702.04 . . .

LEVIN v. DALVA BROTHERS, INC., 459 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2006)

. . . See Weinstein’s Evidence, § 702.04[6] (2006). . . .

UNITED STATES v. MONTEIRO,, 407 F. Supp. 2d 351 (D. Mass. 2006)

. . . contemplates that an expert may be qualified on the basis of experience”); McLaughlin, et ah, supra, at § 702.04 . . .

HEIGHLEY, v. J. C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE CO. J. C. PENNEY CO. INC., 257 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (C.D. Cal. 2003)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 702.04[1][c] (Joseph M. . . .

C. SADLER, v. MORAN TOWING CORPORATION,, 204 F. Supp. 2d 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . Berger, 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[5], at 702-56 (2d ed.2001). . . . .

JAHN, v. EQUINE SERVICES, PSC D. D. V. M. D. V. M. D. V. M., 233 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2000)

. . . Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04[4] (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 2000). . . .

L. HUDLETT C. v. SANDERSON,, 715 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The exception to this rule, found in Florida Statute § 702.04 (1995), provides that when a mortgage encumbers . . .

KEAMS, v. TEMPE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., 993 F. Supp. 714 (D. Ariz. 1997)

. . . testimony of an expert witness, standing alone, cannot create a duty. 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.04 . . .

CENTRAL BUFFALO PROJECT CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, FSLIC, 975 F. Supp. 226 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Id., § 702.04[1]. The court believes that expert testimony can be helpful in this case. . . .

WEST CORP. a k a a a k a a v. EQUITY CAPITAL COMPANY, a, 177 So. 2d 739 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)

. . . Section 702.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. requires that a notice of sale be published in each county wherein . . .

THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES, 143 Ct. Cl. 460 (Ct. Cl. 1958)

. . . Date of approval Date of deed Date deed filed Gain or loss WF-42. 7/24/46 7/31/46 8/28/46 9/11/46 1, 702.04 . . .