INWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellant's appeal was affirmed because the record was inadequate to show reversible error, and section 702.036 does not extend title protections to foreclosures based on unpaid condominium assessments rather than mortgage defaults.
[1] Florida Statute section 702.036, which protects the title of third-party purchasers in mortgage foreclosure sales, does not apply to foreclosures based on unpaid condomin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“§ 702.036(1) protects the title to property procured by third-party buyers after a final judgment of foreclosure 'of a mortgage.' Here, conversely, the foreclosure leading to Appellant's purchase of the property arose from the non-payment of condominium assessments.”
Chief Judge Osterhaus's concurrence explaining the statutory distinction between mortgage and assessment foreclosures
Inwood Investments purchased property at a foreclosure sale arising from non-payment of condominium assessments. The appellant challenged the foreclos…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (affirming where the record brought forward by the appellant was inadequate to show what was presented to the trial court and to demonstrate reversible error).
RAY and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur; OSTERHAUS, C.J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
OSTERHAUS, C.J., concurring.
I concur fully with affirming under Applegate but also note on Appellant’s main argument that § 702.036, Florida Statutes, addresses the finality of “mortgage” foreclosure judgments, not foreclosure judgments generally. To that end § 702.036(1) protects the title to property procured by third-party buyers after a final judgment of foreclosure “of a mortgage.” Here, conversely, the foreclosure leading to Appellant’s purchase of the property arose from the non-payment of condominium assessments. See § 720.3085(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (allowing an association to “bring an action in its name to foreclose a lien for assessments”). Section 702.036(1) says nothing of extending title protections under these circumstances where there was no mortgage-based foreclosure judgment. Cf., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tan, 320 So. 3d 782, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (declining to read non-textual requirements into § 702.036).
Michael J. Henry of Dunlap & Shipman, P.A., Santa Rosa Beach, for Appellant.
Michael R. Esposito and Nicole R. Topper of Blank Rome LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Thanyakorn Atsawamahakul, 320 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)