Frequently attorneys come to court and end up not fighting the Bank surprisingly,
but rather judges who are worried about their superior court’s assessment
of limitless granting of continuances of sale in foreclosure matter. In
truth however, the Court’s authority to cancel a sale without limitation
is clear where (1) the Plaintiff has filed an independent motion to cancel
a sale and (2) where the case law throughout Florida’s District
Courts have held that when the Mortgagee, such as Plaintiff, is in agreement
or otherwise requesting the sale be cancelled, the Court should not interfere.
See Firstbank Puerto Rico v. Othon, No. 4D15-583, 2015 WL 1813996, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2015) (holding that
continuances or cancellations shall not occur
without the express consent of the Mortgagee) (emphasis added);
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lupica, 36 So. 3d 875, 876-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
The Courts have held time and time again that “foreclosures are equitable
proceedings under Florida law and settlements between litigants are favored.”
Id. The Courts have gone as far to say that when a trial court denies unopposed
motions, it outright “flies in the face of these [equitable] principles”
so ingrained in Florida’s legal terrain and policy.
Id. Moreover, when a trial court elects to disregard these principles, they
do so at risk of “constitut[ing] a gross abuse of discretion.
See, e.g., Opportunity *877 Funding I, LLC v. Otetchestvennyi, 909 So.2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
 Further, it is known that should the foreclosure sale not be cancelled
under certain circumstances, then the Court is unnecessarily further exposing
Plaintiffs to liability and litigation as to their role and conduct in
adherence to the federal regulatory guidelines intended to protect consumers
such as the Defendant, herein.