MARZELL MITCHELL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
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.
A mortgagor who conveyed all his interest in mortgaged property to another is neither a necessary nor proper party to a foreclosure action when no deficiency judgment is sought.
A mortgagor who has conveyed all his rights and interests in mortgaged property to another is neither a necessary nor proper party to a foreclosure suit unless a deficiency decree is sought.
[1] A mortgagor who has conveyed all rights and interests in mortgaged property to another is neither a necessary nor proper party to a foreclosure action unless a deficiency…
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 intelligenceThe appellant, the original mortgagor, conveyed his entire interest in the property to his daughter by warranty deed in 1981. In 1996, the lender file…
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 Proper Party cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, the original mortgagor of certain real property, conveyed his entire interest therein to his daughter by warranty deed in 1981. In 1996, appellee filed a foreclosure action with respect to the subject property without joining appellant as a party defendant, but appellant nevertheless filed an answer with affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The trial court subsequently granted appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s pleadings based on its finding that appellant was not a party to the action.
Appellant claims that he had standing in this foreclosure action because he was the original and remaining mortgagor on the property. In Dennis v. Ivey, 134 Fla. 181, 185, 183 So. 624, 626 (1938), the supreme court held that “[w]hen mortgagors have conveyed all their rights and interests in and to the mortgaged property to other parties, such mortgagors are neither necessary nor proper parties to a suit to foreclose unless a deficiency decree is sought.” (citations omitted). Because appellee did not seek a. deficiency judgment against appellant, he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the foreclosure suit. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order striking appellant’s pleadings based on its finding that appellant was a non-party.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 942 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…also South Palm Beach Invs., Inc. v. Regatta Trading Ltd., 789 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming where appellants “had previously conveyed all their rights and interests in the property to the owner”); Mitchell v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 763 So. 2d 358, 358-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming where appellant had conveyed by warranty deed his rights and interests in the property to his daughter); 55 Am.Jur.2d Mortgages § 1268 (2005) (stating that a mortgagor is not a necessary party to foreclosure if…
-
S. Palm Beach Invs., Inc. v. Regatta Trading Ltd., 789 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ing their motion. Appel-lee was seeking only to foreclose the mortgage, not a deficiency judgment. Having no rights nor interest in the property, appellants were not proper parties to this foreclosure suit. See Mitchell v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 763 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(citing Dennis v. Ivey, 134 Fla. 181, 185, 183 So. 624, 626 (1938)). AFFIRMED. POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Dennis v. Ivey, 134 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1938)