MUNICIPAL SAVINGS & LOAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
F. FIORENTINO; NORTH BAY MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.; JACOB FRIESSEN; MALCOLM GILLES; DIANA E. RYBACK; BRIAN R. DYCE; VERNON J. OSKEY; AND ERVIN PENTEL, 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.
Municipal Savings & Loan Corporation appealed orders denying deficiency judgments in mortgage foreclosure actions, while mortgagors/guarantors appealed an order granting a deficiency judgment. The court affirmed three denials of deficiency judgments and reversed one grant, holding that the mortgagee suffered no financial loss where fair market value of the foreclosed properties exceeded the debt, and that collateral estoppel prevented a fourth judge from entering a deficiency judgment after three other judges had denied identical motions.
The court affirmed the three orders denying deficiency judgments because there was sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude the fair market value of the units exceeded the debt, leaving the mortgagee with no financial loss. The court reversed the order granting a deficiency judgment, holding that the fourth judge was bound by collateral estoppel from the prior denials based on identical parties, issues, and evidence.
[1] A deficiency judgment may not be entered when the fair market value of the foreclosed property exceeds the amount of the debt.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a deficiency judgment when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the property's fai…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“There was a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which the trial court could have concluded as he did, that the fair market value of the condominium units purchased by the mortgagee exceeded the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale.”
Establishes the legal standard that when fair market value exceeds debt, no deficiency judgment is warranted because the mortgagee suffers no financial loss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis consolidated appeal involved nine mortgage foreclosure and guarantee enforcement actions affecting twenty-six condominium units in the same build…
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 Foreclosure Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal from four separate trial court orders entered upon motions for a deficiency judgment in nine mortgage foreclosure and guarantee enforcement actions. These actions fell before four separate trial judges below and involve a total of twenty-six condominium units in the same condominium apartment building. Three of the trial court orders deny the motion for deficiency judgment; the last trial court order grants such a motion and enters a deficiency judgment. The mortgagee in each of these actions appeals the three orders denying its motions for a deficiency judgment; the mortgagor/guarantors in each of those actions appeal the only order entering a deficiency judgment. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the three orders denying a deficiency judgment and reverse the order entering a deficiency judgment.
First, we have no difficulty in concluding that the trial judge who heard the first motion for a deficiency judgment — Circuit Judge Richard Hickey — did not abuse his discretion in denying the mortgagee’s mo tion for a deficiency judgment. There was a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which the trial court could have concluded as he did, that the fair market value of the condominium units purchased by the mortgagee exceeded the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale. We have carefully considered the mortgagee’s arguments to the contrary but are not persuaded thereby. This being so, there was obviously no basis for a deficiency judgment in this action because the mortgagee, in fact, suffered no financial loss. We, accordingly, affirm this order. Barnard v. First Nat’l Bank of Okaloosa Cty, 482 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Second, we equally have no difficulty in concluding that the trial judge who heard the second motion for a deficiency judgment — Circuit Judge Sidney Shapiro — did not abuse his discretion in denying that motion for a deficiency judgment. There was a sufficient evidentiary showing — indeed, the identical evidentiary showing as was made in the first case before Judge Hickey — upon which the trial judge could, and did, conclude that the fair market value of the condominium units purchased by the mortgagee exceeded the amount of the debt at the time of the foreclosure sale. There being no financial loss to the mortgagee, we accordingly affirm this order. Barnard v. First Nat’l Bank of Okaloosa Cty, 482 So. 2d at 534; Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d at 345; Hamilton Inv. Trust v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d at 883.
Third, we also have no difficulty in concluding that the third trial judge who heard the third motion for a deficiency judgment — Circuit Judge Edward Moore — was entirely correct in denying the said motion based on collateral estoppel grounds. Based on identical real parties in interest, identical issues, and identical evidence, Judges Hickey and Shapiro had denied pri-or motions by this same mortgagee against the same mortgagors and guarantors involving identically valued condominium units in the same condominium apartment building. Judge Moore was bound by the prior denials and correctly denied the motion in the case before him. Seaboard Cost Line R.R. v. Cox, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1976); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Husky Indus. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Finally, we conclude that the last trial judge — Circuit Judge Fredricka Smith— was in error in entering a deficiency judgment. Based on identical real parties in interest, identical issues, and identical evidence, Judges Hickey and Shapiro had denied virtually identical motions for a deficiency judgment. Judge Smith was bound by those rulings based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We, accordingly, reverse the deficiency judgment entered by Judge Smith and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to deny the mortgagee’s motion for a deficiency judgment. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Lorf v. Indiana Ins. Co., 426 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Valois, 570 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ee Baxter v. Kobs, 451 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). When the fair market value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale1 exceeds the debt owed, the court may [*304] deny a deficiency judgment. Municipal Sav. & Loan Corp. v. Fiorentino, 512 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Belgrano v. Finkelstein, 493 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see Spencer v. American Advisory Corp., 338 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977). Here, the evidence as to fair market value was the pri…
-
First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. Goodwin Beach P'ship, 644 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ellate court must affirm. Peoples Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Tarentum, Pa. v. Shoreline Garden Townhomes, II, Ltd., 538 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.1989); Municipal Savings & Loan Corporation v. Fiorentino, 512 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). This is particularly required in cases such as this where there [*1365] was a diversity of expert opinion and the trial judge had to resolve conflicting. facts and opinions.4 Only if the appellate court can say the trial court ab…
-
Howell v. Gaines, 608 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…market value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale exceeds the debt owed, the court may deny a deficiency judgment. Community Bank of Homestead v. Valois, 570 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Municipal Savings & Loan Corp. v. Fiorentino, 512 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Spencer v. American Advisory Corp., 338 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977). We hold that in Gaines I and Gaines II, the stipulation of the parties was binding, and the fair market value of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vallen James Trumps v. State, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1977)
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. COX, 338 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1976)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hamilton Inv. Tr. v. Escambia Developers, Inc., 352 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Wilson v. Adams & Fusselle, Inc., 467 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Barnard v. First Nat'l Bank of Okaloosa Cnty., 482 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Coco v. State, 426 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)