A Florida appeals court has stepped in to stop the court-ordered sale of a Hardee County residence, handing a temporary victory to a man who claims he already paid for his ex-partner’s share of the property.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a ruling on Tuesday quashing a lower court’s decision that would have forced the partition and sale of the home shared by Roger Salazar and Stephanie Ortiz. The appellate court found that the trial judge jumped the gun by ordering the sale before addressing Salazar’s claims that a private buyout deal was already in progress.
According to court documents, Salazar and Ortiz originally bought the home together as a couple. After they split, Salazar remained in the house while Ortiz moved out. Ortiz eventually filed a lawsuit to force a “partition”—a legal process where a court orders a property to be sold so the co-owners can split the cash.
Salazar fought back, representing himself in court. He filed a counterclaim alleging that the two had an oral agreement for him to buy out Ortiz’s interest. Salazar told the court he had already paid most of the agreed-upon price, handled all the mortgage and insurance payments, and made “valuable and permanent improvements” to the property.
READ: Florida Cops Nab Duo Linked To 40-Store Ulta Theft Spree And Texas Felony Warrant
The trial court, presided over by Judge Brandon J. Rafool, had previously ruled in favor of Ortiz. The judge pointed to the “Statute of Frauds,” a legal principle that generally requires real estate contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. Since Salazar didn’t have a signed paper contract, the trial court ordered the home to be sold.
However, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled that the law isn’t that black and white. Writing for the majority, Judge Gannam noted that Florida law recognizes “partial performance” as an exception to the writing requirement. If someone has already paid money, taken possession of the house, and improved the property, an oral deal might still stand.
“The trial court’s premature judgment of partition departed from the essential requirements of the law,” the court stated in its opinion. The appellate judges noted that the sale was ordered while Salazar’s counter-claims were still pending and unanswered by Ortiz.
The appeals court emphasized that land is considered unique under the law, and losing a home is an “irreparable harm” that can’t easily be fixed with a check later on. By stopping the sale, the court is allowing the legal battle over the alleged buyout agreement to actually play out in front of a judge.
Not everyone on the three-judge panel agreed. Judge Smith dissented, not because he necessarily disagreed with the legal facts, but because he felt Salazar hadn’t argued those specific points clearly enough in his petition.
For now, the “For Sale” sign is off the table. The case now heads back to the lower court, where the parties will have to hash out whether the oral buyout agreement is valid before any hammers fall at an auction.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
