The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 56.21

56.21 Execution sales; notice.—Notice of all sales under execution shall be given by advertisement once each week for 4 successive weeks in a newspaper published in the county in which the sale is to take place. The time of such notice may be shortened in the discretion of the court from which the execution issued, upon affidavit that the property to be sold is subject to decay and will not sell for its full value if held until date of sale. On or before the date of the first publication or posting of the notice of sale, a copy of the notice of sale shall be furnished by the sheriff by certified mail to the attorney of record of the judgment debtor, or to the judgment debtor at the judgment debtor’s last known address if the judgment debtor does not have an attorney of record. Such copy of the notice of sale shall be mailed even though a default judgment was entered. When levying upon real or personal property, a notice of such levy and execution sale and a copy of the affidavit required by s. 56.27(4) shall be sent by the sheriff to the attorneys of record of all judgment creditors and other lienholders, or to all judgment creditors and other lienholders who do not have an attorney of record, who have acquired a lien as provided in s. 55.10(1) and (2), s. 55.202, s. 55.204(3), or s. 695.01, and whose liens have not lapsed at the time of levy, at the address listed in the judgment lien certificate or other recorded liens, or, if amended, in any amendment thereto, and to all secured creditors who have filed financing statements as provided in part V of chapter 679 in the name of the judgment debtor reflecting a security interest in property of the kind to be sold at the execution sale at the address listed in the financing statement, or, if amended, in any amendment to the financing statement. Such notice shall be made in the same manner as notice is made to any judgment debtor under this section. When levying upon real property, notice of such levy and execution sale and affidavit required by s. 56.27(4) shall be made to the property owner of record in the same manner as notice is made to any judgment debtor pursuant to this section, and shall be made to each other person holding a mortgage or other lien against the real property as disclosed by the affidavit. When selling real or personal property, the sale date shall not be earlier than 30 days after the date of the first advertisement.

History.—s. 3, Feb. 17, 1833; RS 1202; GS 1631; RGS 2835; CGL 4522; s. 11, ch. 67-254; s. 2, ch. 77-462; s. 4, ch. 82-118; s. 10, ch. 94-170; s. 18, ch. 2000-258; s. 12, ch. 2001-154; s. 10, ch. 2005-241; s. 5, ch. 2009-215.

Note.—Former s. 55.44.

F.S. 56.21 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.21 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.21

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.21

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.21.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

TOS ELIK PROFIL VE SAC END STRISI A. S. v. UNITED STATES,, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018)

. . . USCIT Rule 56.21, n.1, July 10, 2017, ECF No. 24; Letter from Schagrin Associates to Department of Commerce . . .

STANSELL, G. T. C. I. N. v. REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF COLOMBIA, FARC a N. A. S. A. G. T. I. C. N. v. FARC U. S. C. W. S. A. ALM MLA LLC, G. T. v. FARC II, C. W. G. T. v. FARC G. T. C. I. v. FARC U. S. G. T. C. I. N. v. FARC, 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 56.21 (“When levying upon real property, notice of such levy and execution sale and affidavit ... . . . Stat. § 56.21; cf. . . . Bankr.S.D.Fla.2011) (setting aside an execution sale where judgment creditors failed to comply with the § 56.21 . . .

CORDELL, v. McKINNEY,, 759 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . Security Video, Cordell 2 at 17:12:56.21; see also R. 29 at 66:1-4 (McKinney Dep.) (Page ID # 303). . . .

S. STETTNER, v. RICHARDSON,, 143 So. 3d 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . sheriffs sale, asserting he had not been given proper notice of the sheriffs sale as required by section 56.21 . . . The order denying Stettner’s motion to vacate the sheriffs sale Under section 56.21, Florida Statutes . . . disputed facts as to whether Stettner or his counsel received the requisite notice pursuant to section 56.21 . . .

FIRST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF MARSHALL ISLANDS, v. FUJIAN MAWEI SHIPBUILDING, LIMITED, s s s, 703 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . The aforementioned Wang and Lin declarations only show that FSIGC directly owns 56.21% of Mawei’s total . . .

FIRST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS v. FUJIAN MAWEI SHIPBUILDING, LTD. OF PEOPLE S REPUBLIC OF CHINA,, 858 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. La. 2012)

. . . research revealed that Mawei is a joint-stock limited company and that the Fujian Group directly owns 56.21% . . .

In KING, C. v., 463 B.R. 555 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . Stat. § 56.21 addresses the notice requirements for an execution sale. . . . Stat. § 56.21 was Monday, March 29, 2010. . . . Stat. § 56.21 must be strictly applied. In De-Gregorio v. . . . Stat. § 56.21 must be strictly applied. . . . Kittredge, 566 So.2d 364, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (sale under Florida Statutes § 56.21). . . .

GAMEZ, v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA f k a, 31 So. 3d 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 56.21, Florida Statutes (2005), establishes the notice requirement for the execution sale of . . . that the Gamezes’ due process rights are provided for and satisfied by the requirements of section 56.21 . . . Section 56.21 provides for sufficient notice to a third party real property owner and affords such property . . . Where the third party property owner is given notice as required by section 56.21, they have the opportunity . . .

A. LEVINE, Ph. D. v. GONZALEZ, M. D. H. s H. s P. A., 901 So. 2d 969 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . than 90 days from the date hereof, in accordance with the procedures contained in Florida Statute §§ 56.21 . . .

In BARTMANN, R. A., 320 B.R. 725 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2004)

. . . incurred expenses as follows: $150.00 for “Court fees — Filing of Notice of Appeal in 99-0006-R,” $56.21 . . .

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, v. T. EDWARDS,, 849 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . In contrast, execution sales, undertaken pursuant to sections 56.21 through 56.25, Florida Statutes ( . . .

M. FRITSCH, v. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, 187 F.R.D. 614 (S.D. Cal. 1999)

. . . its employees without the patient having first signed an authorization under Section 56.11 or Section 56.21 . . .

CAPITAL LEASING OF OHIO, INC, v. COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,, 13 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D. Ohio 1998)

. . . Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 650 F.2d 118, 121 (6th Cir.1981), citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Part 2, § 56.21 . . .

FERRARO, v. MAZUREK,, 621 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . See §§ 56.16, 56.21, Fla.Stat. (1991); see generally Coe v. . . .

BIT- O- SWEDEN, INC. v. KITTREDGE,, 566 So. 2d 364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . order setting aside a judicial sale for failure to comply with the technical requirements of section 56.21 . . .

N. ALDAY, v. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Co., 906 F.2d 660 (11th Cir. 1990)

. . . Beginning on that date, CCA salaried retirees under age 65 were required to contribute $56.21 for themselves . . .

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, v. SYKES,, 557 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . to his regular workman’s compensation pursuant to provision of the Metropolitan Dade County Code § 2-56.21 . . .

E. BROCK, v. GINGERBREAD HOUSE, INC. Jo v. BLATCHLEY, 907 F.2d 115 (10th Cir. 1989)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.21[2] (2d ed. 1988). . . .

SEPHUS v. GOZELSKI, M., 864 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . The district court found that, contrary to the requirements of Fla.Stat. sec. 56.21, the Hunters received . . . Although the district court’s opinion relies on the alleged violation of Fla.Stat. sec. 56.21, the Hunters . . . Fla.Stat. sec. 56.21. . . . court found that the Marshal’s sale was conducted contrary to the notice requirement of Fla.Stat. sec. 56.21 . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK COMPANY,, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988)

. . . Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.21[2], at 56-1276 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

WHITT, v. SMITH,, 832 F.2d 451 (7th Cir. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice II 56.21[2] at 56-127 (2d ed. 1987). . . .

SEPHUS v. GOZELSKI, a k a HUNTER v. M. HUSTEAD,, 670 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . Turning to Florida law, Florida Statutes Section 56.21 (1982) governed the procedures to be followed . . . While it is true that Florida Statutes Section 56.21 is silent as to where responsibility for mailing . . .

CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY v. G. LYNCH, R. Ad, 605 F. Supp. 1005 (E.D.N.C. 1985)

. . . APPENDIX A County Ratio Forsyth 81.40 Catawba 67.54 Granville 63.96 Iredell 71.17 Robeson 78.70 Rowan 56.21 . . .

MATTERHORN, INC. v. NCR CORPORATION,, 727 F.2d 629 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.21[2] (1982). . . .

PITNEY BOWES, INC. v. MESTRE,, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1983)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice K 56.21[2] (2d ed. 1982). . . .

In SHIREY Sr. a k a a k a SHIREY v. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 25 B.R. 247 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . never sent the final bill to the debtors, that bill never became due within the meaning of 52 Pa.Code § 56.21 . . .

In KELLY L. KELLY v. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY,, 25 B.R. 249 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . never sent the final bill to the debtors, that bill never became due within the meaning of 52 Pa.Code § 56.21 . . .

CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY, v. G. LYNCH,, 527 F. Supp. 784 (E.D.N.C. 1981)

. . . Davidson Richmond 47.30 56.87 Davie Robeson 78.70 90.75 Duplin Rockingham 77.44 71.50 Durham Rowan 56.21 . . .

GOULD v. CONTROL LASER CORP., 650 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . See generally 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice (¶ 56.21[2] at 56-1279 and n. 14; 16 C. Wright & A. . . .

GULF OIL CORPORATION, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 514 F. Supp. 1019 (D.D.C. 1981)

. . . paid and the free market price for the barrels, raising the pre-entitlement price of the barrels to $56.21 . . .

QUAY DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. ELEGANTE BUILDING CORPORATION,, 392 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1981)

. . . This case involves the constitutionality of former section 56.21, Florida Statutes (1975), which provided . . . Ch. 77-462, § 2, Laws of Fla.; § 56.21, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . . The appellant contends that the notice provisions of section 56.21 were not offensive to due process. . . . We disagree and affirm the judgment on the ground that former section 56.21 was unconstitutional as applied . . . without due process of law was violated by the state’s use of the procedure authorized by former section 56.21 . . .

v., 70 T.C. 735 (T.C. 1978)

. . . the book value of Harrah Realty Co. capital stock ($46,500) and retained earnings ($2,567,193) was $56.21 . . .

GIBSON, v. SAMPSON f k a f k a, 353 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . of the sheriff’s sale in a small weekly newspaper (The Apopka Chief) pursuant to Florida Statute § 56.21 . . .

HELINGER a k a v. K. ALLEN R. M., 352 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Pursuant to Section 56.21, Florida Statutes (1975), the sheriff’s department also caused the following . . .

COMMERCIAL BANK OF OKEECHOBEE, a v. E. PROCTOR, STATE COMMERCIAL BANK OF OKEECHOBEE, a v. T. SWIGERT, E., 349 So. 2d 710 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . cattle levied upon were in extremely poor condition, therefore subject to decay, and pursuant to Section 56.21 . . . Sec. 56.21, Fla.Stat, provides, in part: “. . the time of such notice [30 days] may be shortened in the . . .

HILLIER, v. COHEN,, 45 Fla. Supp. 171 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1977)

. . . (amended to this statute during the course of suit pursuant to stipulation and order) and Sections 56.21 . . . case that ruling be made upon the constitutionality upon its face of Section 212.15(3), and Sections 56.21 . . .

HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 467 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1972)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice H 56.21 [2]. . . .

LODY, No. XXX- XX- XXXX v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, 451 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1971)

. . . Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 332 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1964); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 56.21 [2], p. 2788 . . .

PAINTON COMPANY, v. BOURNS, INC., 442 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1971)

. . . Kraft, 200 F.2d 952 (2 Cir. 1953); 6 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.21 [2] at 2788-89 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

GOLDSTEIN, PIETRARU, v. COX, 396 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1970)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.21 [2], at 2791-2792 (2d ed. 1966). . . .

In UNITED SOUTHERN COMPANIES, H. DUCKWORTH, Jr. v. D. CRAVEY, Jr. P. D. Sr., 410 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1969)

. . . 1949, 178 F.2d 495; Matter of Finklestein, 2 Cir. 1939, 102 F.2d 688; 6 Moore Federal Practice, Par. 56.21 . . .

R. DUKE, v. W. GARDNER,, 387 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1967)

. . . See also 6 Moore, Federal Practice, Para. 56.21(2). The appeal is accordingly Dismissed. . . .

In BRENDAN REILLY ASSOCIATES, INC. TESCIURA, d b a WEINSTEIN,, 378 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1967)

. . . Frankel, 367 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1966); 6 Moore, Federal Practice ft 56.21 [2]. . . . proceedings in bankruptcy and in plenary actions brought by the Trustee are not. 6 Moore, Federal Practice ft 56.21 . . .

CHAPPELL CO. T. B. v. J. FRANKEL,, 367 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1966)

. . . And this would almost always seem to be so when, as is usually the case, 6 Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.21 . . .

W. KLEBANOFF, v. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, v. W. KLEBANOFF, W. W. M., 246 F. Supp. 935 (D. Conn. 1965)

. . . Rule 54(b): . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 111154.40, 54.41 [1], 56.20[3], 56.20 [4], 56.21 [1] (2d ed. . . .

L. COHEN, v. CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY,, 333 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1964)

. . . Giles Co., 1 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 513, 514; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, par. 56.21(1) (2 ed. 1953). . . .

UNITED STATES v. H. DE WITT, 265 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1959)

. . . Barron, Holtzoff & Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1242 (1958); 6 Moore, Federal Practice No. 56.21 . . .

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, a v. UNITED STATES CAMO CORPORATION, a G. F., 19 F.R.D. 495 (W.D. Mo. 1956)

. . . discussion of Rule 56 in Moore’s Federal Practice, Sections 56.20(3) (Vol. 6 beginning at p. 2299) and 56.21 . . .

UNITED STATES v. BEUTEL, 99 F. Supp. 1009 (W.D. Ky. 1951)

. . . month, when the maximum legal rent during said period was $53.55 per month, making a total sum of $56.21 . . . Clark 56.21 Alvin J. Wiesman 62.16 Harry E. Best 60.62 J. J. . . .

CAMDEN BURLINGTON COUNTY RAILWAY CO., 3 B.T.A. 602 (B.T.A. 1926)

. . . of the alleged deficiency in controversy is stated by the petition as follows: 1918, $67.46; 1919, $56.21 . . .