GLORIA HARROD, APPELLANT,
v.
UNION FINANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GUIDO E. RODRIGUEZ, A/K/A GUIDO RODRIGUEZ, AND ADIS E. RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's vacation of a foreclosure judgment and clerk's sale, holding that a party cannot intervene in a foreclosure action when their property interest, though acquired before the lis pendens, was not recorded until after the lis pendens was filed.
A party whose property interest is not recorded until after a lis pendens is filed in a foreclosure action cannot intervene, regardless of when the interest was actually acquired.
[1] A party whose property interest is not recorded until after a lis pendens is filed in a foreclosure action cannot intervene in that action, even if the interest was acqui…
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“the rule precluding intervention in a mortgage foreclosure action by a person who acquires an interest in the subject property after the recording of a lis pendens...is equally applicable where the prospective intervenor's interest, although acquired beforehand, is not recorded until after the recording of the lis pendens”
Court explaining that the timing of recording, not acquisition, controls the intervention rule
Harrod obtained a clerk's sale in a foreclosure action. The Marreros claimed an interest in the foreclosed property based on a deed executed in Septem…
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 Purchaser Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order which, for the purpose of permitting the Marreros to intervene in the reopened foreclosure action, vacated both a final judgment of foreclosure and a clerk’s sale to Harrod made pursuant thereto. The Marreros’ asserted interest in the foreclosed property derives from a deed ostensibly executed in September 1981, but not recorded until De cember 22, 1981, eight days after the lis pendens accompanying the foreclosure action was filed and recorded. The concern that to allow purchasers pendente lite to intervene would unnecessarily protract litigation, Peninsular Naval Stores Company v. Cox, 57 Fla. 505, 49 So. 191 (1909), which gave rise to the rule precluding intervention in a mortgage foreclosure action by a person who acquires an interest in the subject property after the recording of a lis pendens, see Andresix Corporation v. Peoples Downtown National Bank, 419 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and cases cited therein, is equally applicable where the prospective intervenor’s interest, although acquired beforehand, is not recorded until after the recording of the lis pendens. In our view, the rule must be the same in either case.
Reversed with directions to reinstate the final judgment of foreclosure and the clerk’s sale to Harrod.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bymel v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…24, 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (per curiam affirmance citing to SADCO and Andre-six). The rule in Andresix is based on the “concern that to allow purchasers pen-dente lite to intervene would unnecessarily protract litigation.” Harrod v. Union Fin. Co., 420 So. 2d 108, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Thus, when property is purchased during a pending foreclosure action in which a lis pendens has been filed, the purchaser generally is not entitled to intervene in the pending foreclosure action. Indeed, if such a buyer purc…
-
Pealer v. Wilmington Tr. Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Mfra Tr., 212 So. 3d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…and mortgage. More often than not, the sole purpose of their participation in the bank’s foreclosure is to “unnecessarily protract litigation.” See Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So.3d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Harrod v. Union Fin. Co., 420 So.2d 108, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). And to be sure, the actions taken by the Pealers during the underlying litigation in the instant case did act to prolong the proceedings, when all the while— according to Mrs. Pealer’s own testimony—they continued to collec…1 / 2
-
Chase Home Loans, LLC v. Citimortgage, Inc., 204 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Harrod v. Union Finance Co., 420 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). WARNER, MAY, JJ„ and ARTAU, EDWARD L., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Peninsular Naval Stores Co. v. Cox, 57 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1909)
- Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat'l Bank, 419 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)