PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
v.
ERIC V. SCHREIBER A/K/A ERIC SCHREIBER AND KATHY SCHREIBER

Fla. 5th DCA | 2022-07-15
No. 21-1377
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2022)

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.

Holding

Collateral estoppel bars a lender from re-litigating whether it complied with HUD regulations before initiating foreclosure when that identical issue was previously decided between the same parties.

Headnotes

[1] Collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of an issue previously litigated between the same parties and fully determined in a prior action resulting in a final judgment.

[2] An involuntary dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action revokes acceleration of the mortgage and reinstates the mortgagor's right to continue making payments.

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
Key Quotes

“collateral estoppel applies when the identical issue has been litigated between the same party and the particular matter was fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction”

Court's explanation of collateral estoppel standard
Facts & Procedural History

PHH Mortgage Corporation initiated a second foreclosure action against Eric and Kathy Schreiber on the same mortgage, seeking to foreclose based on al…

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.

Topics
Foreclosure Collateral Estoppel Res Judicata

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v. Case No. 5D21-1377 LT Case No. 2019-CA-868-A ERIC V. SCHREIBER A/K/A ERIC SCHREIBER AND KATHY SCHREIBER, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 15, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Carol A. Falvey, Judge. Michael Smith, of Burr & Forman LLP, Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. David La Croix, McAlpin, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. PER CURIAM.

In this second foreclosure action between the same parties, PHH Mortgage Corporation (“Lender”) appeals a final judgment entered in accordance with an order granting summary judgment in favor of Eric and Kathy Schreiber (“Borrowers”). We affirm. The trial court correctly concluded that collateral estoppel barred re-litigation of the issue of whether Lender complied with HUD regulations before initiating foreclosure because that same issue was previously litigated by the same parties and decided in the prior case. See, e.g., Paresky v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 893 So. 2d 664, 665–66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[C]ollateral estoppel applies when the identical issue has been litigated between the same party and the particular matter was fully litigated and determined in a contest that results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.”).1 In their cross appeal, Borrowers argue that the trial court erred by not forever barring the Lender from seeking to foreclose on the subject mortgage. This argument is without merit:

Footnotes
1 We agree with Lender that the trial court erred in concluding that the second foreclosure action was barred by res judicata. See, e.g., Provident Funding Assoc., L.P. v. MDTR, 257 So. 3d 1114, 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding second foreclosure complaint alleging default period overlapping alleged default period in first foreclosure case not barred by res judicata because second default period included more recent defaults). When a mortgage foreclosure action is involuntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 1.420(b), either with or without prejudice, the effect of the involuntary dismissal is revocation of the acceleration, which then reinstates the mortgagor’s right to continue to make payments on the note and the right of the mortgagee, to seek acceleration and foreclosure based on the mortgagor’s subsequent defaults. Bartram v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 211 So. 3d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 2016). AFFIRMED. EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur. SASSO, J., concurs in result only with opinion. Case No. 5D21-1377 LT Case No. 2019-CA-00868-A SASSO, J., concurring in result. I agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason. Although Lender correctly asserts this action was not barred by res judicata because it alleged a different default period, Lender failed to challenge the court’s reliance on collateral estoppel as a basis for summary judgment. As a result, Lender has abandoned any argument as to whether the court properly applied the collateral estoppel defense. See Doe v. Baptist Primary Care, Inc., 177 So. 3d 669, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“A trial court’s decision is presumed correct, thus an appellant who presents no argument as to why a trial court’s ruling is incorrect on an issue has abandoned the issue.” (internal citations omitted)). With that alternative basis for affirmance uncontested, I agree the final judgment should be affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw