DALE R. PARRIMON AND CYNTHIA A. PARRIMON, APPELLANTS,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO AND MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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 Parrimons appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate judgments in a foreclosure case involving First National Bank of Chicago and Manatee County. The court affirmed the bank's foreclosure judgment but reversed and remanded regarding Manatee County's money judgment, which was erroneously entered against both spouses when it should have been entered against the husband only.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief regarding the Bank's foreclosure judgment and the judgment against Mr. Parrimon. However, the court reversed the trial court's denial of relief regarding the judgment against Mrs. Parrimon and remanded for the trial court to vacate that portion of the judgment and enter an amended judgment against Mr. Parrimon only.
[1] A final judgment for money damages entered against a party who was not properly served and against whom a money judgment was not sought is erroneous.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion to vacate a portion of a final judgment that was improperly entered against a party.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“On May 14, 2001, the trial court erroneously entered a final judgment for Manatee County against both Mr. and Mrs. Parri-mon for $4208.64, rather than against Mr. Parrimon alone.”
Establishes the error that was the basis for reversal—the judgment was entered against Mrs. Parrimon without proper service or request
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst National Bank of Chicago foreclosed on a first mortgage on the Parrimons' property. Manatee County held a second mortgage and filed a cross-clai…
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 Final Judgment Of Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Dale and Cynthia Parrimon appeal the trial court’s “Order on Objection to Sale and Issuance of Certificate of Title, Motion to Vacate Default and Judgments and Set Aside Judicial Sale, Amended Objection-to Sale, and Motion for Issuance of Certificate of Title” as it related to the final judgment of foreclosure obtained by First National Bank of Chicago (“the Bank”) and as it related to the final judgment for money damages obtained by Manatee County, Florida. We affirm the order in part and reverse in part.
The Bank successfully foreclosed a first mortgage interest in the Parrimons’ property. We affirm the trial court’s order denying relief to the Parrimons on their motion as it relates to the Bank’s final judgment of mortgage foreclosure in all respects without further discussion.
Manatee County was a defendant in the Bank’s action against the Parrimons because it held a second mortgage on the property which was the subject of the foreclosure action. Manatee County filed a cross-claim against the Parrimons to foreclose its second mortgage and promissory note. In its cross-claim it sought a money judgment against both Mr. and Mrs. Parri-mon. However, in its motion for summary judgment, Manatee County sought a judgment for the sums owed under the promissory note from Mr. Parrimon only. In the motion, Manatee County noted that it was unable to obtain personal service upon Mrs. Parrimon and it did not request that a judgment be entered against her. On May 14, 2001, the trial court erroneously entered a final judgment for Manatee County against both Mr. and Mrs. Parri-mon for $4208.64, rather than against Mr. Parrimon alone. The Parrimons’ motion sought to vacate that portion of Manatee County’s final judgment for money damages entered against Mrs. Parrimon. The trial court erred when it denied that portion of the Parrimons’ motion. See Del Conte Enter. v. Thomas Pub. Co., 711 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
In their motion, the Parrimons also sought to vacate that portion of Manatee County’s final judgment for money damages against Mr. Parrimon. The final judgment against Mr. Parrimon in favor of Manatee County was properly entered. We affirm the trial court’s order denying relief to the Parrimons as it relates to Manatee County’s final judgment for money damages against Mr. Parrimon without further discussion.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying relief relating to the portion of Manatee County’s final judgment entered against Mrs. Parrimon for money damages. We remand for the trial court to vacate Manatee County’s final judgment rendered on May 14, 2001. The trial court is directed to enter an amended final judgment in favor of Manatee County for money damages as to Mr. Parrimon only. In all other respects the trial court’s “Order on Objection to Sale and Issuance of Certificate of Title, Motion to Vacate Default and Judgments and Set Aside Judicial Sale, Amended Objection to Sale, and Motion for Issuance of Certificate of Title” is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanley v. Greystone Med. Grp., Inc., 952 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…eived notice of the Stanleys’ motions or the notice of hearing, no judgment was entered against him. We conclude that this factual distinction is determinative, and the trial court erred when it concluded otherwise. See Parrimon v. First Nat’l Bank, 923 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (affirming a judgment against a husband but reversing it as to the wife where the plaintiff acknowledged it had not served her properly and had not sought a judgment against her but the trial court nevertheless erroneously entered…
Authorities Cited
- DEL Conte Enters., Inc. v. Thomas Publ'g Co., 711 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)