[HSkipRob]

Florida: Can a Writ of Possession be inforced after possession has been taken by the new owner in a foreclosure bought at auction? A current case where the new owner allowed the previous owner to stay on the property in exchange for various services after the new owner had taken possession. The previous owner had vacated the house and lived in a camper and shed on the 2.5 acre site while the home was being renovated. The previous owner even assisted various contractors in expediting the renovation. The new owner than used the old writ issued to the foreclosing bank as a means of removing the previous owner "quickly" from the property with many personal and business assets remaiing on the property as the privious owner did not have time to remove years of stored personal property, tools, equipment and materials. The previous owner has taken the position that their was an implied lease after possession was taken and therefore the new owner should have had to evict the privious owner because of his new tenacy.

[JudyKayTee]

I thought a Writ of Possession "allows" a landlord/mortgage company to remove a tenant.

Different landlord OR owner OR different tenant? Writ dies.

This would be a LOT easier to understand if you used "I," "they," words of that nature as opposed to previous, current, former - something along the lines of "I bought a house at auction and ..."

[AK lawyer]

...This would be a LOT easier to understand if you used "I," "they," ...

Oh I disagree. Some questions containing a dozen third person pronouns with multiple parties identified can be almost impossible to unravel.

Anyway, it would help to know where the OP fits in all of this. It seems to me that he (the old owner) should be able to recover damages for what amounts to abuse of process or fraudulent misuse of a writ. And the peace officer who executed the writ is at fault too: he or she received the writ from someone acting on behalf of the "new owner". The writ surely identified the bank as the plaintiff, and so the officer should have known that something was amiss.

[HSkipRob]

I think that you are correct AK lawyer. The new owner deceived the court (fraud) by not acknowleging that he had previously taken possession without adversity and that he had entered into a agreement with the old owner to allow him to stay on the property. He let the court assume that he needed the aid of the court to take Possession by filing as a third party plaintiff on the original Writ granted to the foreclosing Bank. He not only committed fraud on the court he is also in breach of contract and there are witnesses and evidence of both. I personally am witness to the tenancy of the old owner and prior possession by the new owner. We, I'm not an attorney, just trying to help my friend, asked for an emergency hearing prior to the old owner being removed by the Sherriff and the hearing was denied without allowing a verbal argument. From a layman's position, our court system does not appear to be this great bastion of justice.

[HSkipRob]

What's an OP. By the way this is a seventy year old general contractor. No job and he lost his house to foreclosure and now has been removed from the property without his possessions.

[JudyKayTee]

Original poster -

[AK lawyer]

"OP" is shorthand for "original poster", in other words, you.