JOSE TEJEDO, APPELLANT,
v.
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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.
A lienor omitted from a mortgage foreclosure action can be compelled to redeem, but the redemption amount must be based on the mortgage debt, not the foreclosure judgment or its costs.
[1] A lienor omitted from a mortgage foreclosure action may be compelled in a subsequent action to exercise their right of redemption, and failure to do so will bar their cla…
[2] The redemption amount for an omitted lienor is determined by the mortgage debt, not the judgment of foreclosure.
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 intelligenceThe Secretary of Veterans Affairs foreclosed on a mortgage, omitting Jose Tejedo, a lienor. Tejedo was later compelled to redeem the property, but the…
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 Right Of Redemption cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Defendant Jose Tejedo has appealed a summary final judgment requiring him to redeem certain real property as a lienor who was omitted as a party, through no fault of his own, from a mortgage foreclosure action filed in 1983 by the plaintiff Secretary of Veterans Affairs. We reverse as there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the redemption amount that Tejedo is required to pay.
A lienor such as Tejedo who has been omitted from a mortgage foreclosure action can be compelled by a later action to exercise his right to redemption and, if he fails to redeem, be barred from claiming any lien or interest in or to the property. Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shares Corp., 100 Fla. 413,129 So. 690 (1930). The amount which must be paid to accomplish such forced redemption is to be determined from the mortgage debt, not from the judgment of foreclosure, and the omitted lienor cannot be compelled to pay the costs or expenses of the foreclosure of the mortgage. Quinn, 129 So. at 693.
Thus, Tejedo is entitled to the equity of redemption at the amount he would have been required to pay if he had elected to redeem promptly upon the filing of the mortgage foreclosure complaint (case no. 83-2100-CIV-Davis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida). Nowhere in the record do we find an affidavit or other document setting forth that amount. Indeed, the amount required by the trial court appears to be based on the final judgment in the 1983 foreclosure action (together with additional sums), in conflict with the holding in Quinn.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment and remand for further proceedings. The amount for redemption by Tejedo shall be that amount he would have been required to pay had he elected to redeem promptly upon the filing of the mortgage foreclosure complaint. Thecsuccess Corp. v. Graham, 577 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The amount shall not include any interest subsequent to the filing of suit or any costs or expenses of suit.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pinto v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 700 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…PARIENTE, Judge. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of reforeclosure in favor of appellee, EMC Mortgage. However, we reverse the amount of the judgment. See Tejedo v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 673 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Appellant, Pinto, is entitled to pay the redemption amount he would have been required to pay if he had been joined in the first foreclosure and had elected to redeem promptly upon the filing of the first foreclosure. See Quinn P…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Imagine Props., Inc., 752 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…losure action, because Imagine failed to file a lis pendens when it filed the re-foreclosure and intervening lienors may have burdened the property in the interim. On both arguments, we agree and reverse. In Tejedo v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 673 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), this Court stated that “[t]he amount which must be paid to accomplish such forced redemption is to be determined from the mortgage debt, not from the judgment of foreclosure, and the omitted lienor cannot be compelled to pay…
-
Secretary OF Veteran Affairs v. Tejedo, 774 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ting) (“When a ruling is reversed on appeal, the ‘cause after reversal stands as though no decree had been rendered.’ ”) (citations omitted). This Court reversed the summary final judgment in its entirety in Tejedo v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 673 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996): “we reverse the summary final judgment and remand for further proceedings.” In its decision, this Court did not limit the reversal to a specific issue; it merely provided guidance to the lower court in how to set the redempt…1 / 4
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
- Quinn Plumbing Co., Inc. v. New Miami Shores Corp., 100 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1930)
- Lucky Nation, LLC v. Al-Maghazchi (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Thecsuccess Corp. v. Graham, 577 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)