S.D.A. CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA FASTIGGI, DONNA BEARD, LOCH LOMOND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., 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.
S.D.A. Corporation sought to foreclose a second mortgage on a condominium unit, but the mortgagee had assigned the mortgage to 31104 Corporation before the Condominium Association was added as a defendant. The court reversed a default judgment against S.D.A., finding that the substitution of 31104 as party plaintiff effectively replaced S.D.A. in all respects since the claims and defenses were identical.
The court held that the substitution of 31104 for S.D.A. as party plaintiff effectively substituted 31104 for S.D.A. in all respects because the claims and defenses of the Association against both S.D.A. and 31104 were identical. Accordingly, the court found that substantial justice would be accomplished by reversing the default judgment against S.D.A.
[1] A substitution of a party plaintiff for the original plaintiff is effective as to all claims and defenses when the claims and defenses of the original plaintiff and the s…
[2] A default judgment may be reversed when substantial justice would be accomplished by such reversal, particularly where a party substitution occurred and the claims were i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“After considering the subject matter of the respective pleadings of the named parties, we believe the substitution of 31104 for S.D.A. as party plaintiff effectively substituted 31104 for S.D.A. in all respects because the claims and defenses of the Association and S.D.A. on the one hand, and the Association and 31104 on the other hand, were identical.”
The court's holding that the substitution was effective in all respects due to identical claims and defenses
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.D.A. Corporation initiated a foreclosure action on a second mortgage against condominium owner Fastiggi. The Loch Lomond Condominium Association was…
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 Substitution Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant S.D.A. Corporation (S.D.A.) sought to foreclose a second mortgage on a condominium unit against the owner, Fas-tiggi. Appellee, Loch Lomond Condominium Association (the Association), was added as a party defendant because it claimed an assessment lien against the unit. In its answer and affirmative defenses, the Association alleged that S.D.A. had no interest in the property to foreclose on since S.D.A. had assigned the second mortgage to 31104 Corporation (31104) prior to adding the Association as a defendant. Subsequently, the Association counterclaimed and cross-claimed against S.D.A., 31104, the assignee, and codefendant Fastiggi contending that the second mortgage was invalid because it violated the Declaration of Condominium. S.D.A. never filed any responsive pleading to this counterclaim, however, in due course, 31104 moved to be substituted as party plaintiff in the cause in place of S.D.A. and on January 24,1984, an order of substitution was entered. On February 1, 1984, 81104 filed a motion to dismiss the Association’s cross-claim. From the subsequent final default judgment entered against S.D.A. in favor of the Association this appeal has been perfected.
After considering the subject matter of the respective pleadings of the named parties, we believe the substitution of 31104 for S.D.A. as party plaintiff effectively substituted 31104 for S.D.A. in all respects because the claims and defenses of the Association and S.D.A. on the one hand, and the Association and 31104 on the other hand, were identical. Accordingly, it appears substantial justice would be accomplished by reversing the default judgment against S.D.A. REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.
LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.