HOUSEHOLD FINANCE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 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.
This case determines whether a junior mortgagee who defaulted in a foreclosure action can claim entitlement to surplus funds from the foreclosure sale. The court holds that a junior mortgagee has priority to surplus funds over an assignee of the mortgagor's interest, and affirms the trial court's decision awarding the surplus to the junior mortgagee.
A junior mortgagee has priority to surplus funds from a foreclosure sale. A default by a junior mortgagee does not preclude it from claiming entitlement to the surplus proceeds, as a default only admits the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint concerning the superior lien's validity and right to foreclose.
[1] A junior mortgagee, joined as a defendant in a foreclosure action and against whom a default has been entered, may still claim entitlement to surplus funds remaining afte…
[2] A default in a mortgage foreclosure action admits only the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, not the extinguishment of a defendant's lien rights.
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“In determining who is entitled to surplus funds in a mortgage foreclosure, the general rule is that all encumbrances on mortgaged premises inferior to the mortgage on which the sale is based must be paid in order of time in which they respectively became liens, unless some equitable right demands a different order of payment.”
Establishes the governing principle for distributing surplus foreclosure proceeds among multiple lienholders based on priority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFederal Home Loan Mortgage foreclosed on property owned by Marcus Kostolich and named Bank of America as a defendant because it held a junior mortgage…
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 Priority Of Liens cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
At issue in this appeal is whether a junior mortgagee, joined as a defendant in a foreclosure action and against whom a default has been entered, may later claim entitlement to the surplus funds remaining after a foreclosure sale. Specifically, we consider whether that junior mortgagee has priority to the surplus over an assignee of the mortgagor. We hold that a junior mortgagee has priority and affirm.
Federal Home Loan Mortgage instituted a mortgage foreclosure action against mortgagor Marcus Kostolich and others, including Bank of America. Federal alleged that the Bank had a mortgage interest in the subject property inferior to its lien. After receiving service of process, the Bank defaulted by failing to file an answer. Federal proceeded to judgment of foreclosure, and the property was sold in a foreclosure sale. Federal was paid the amount of its judgment, and the remaining proceeds were ordered to be retained by the clerk pending further order of the court.
Kostolich filed an objection to the sale but later withdrew it after executing an assignment of his interest in the surplus funds to appellant, Household Finance Services. Household then filed a motion to disburse the surplus funds to it. Before that motion was heard, Bank of America filed a notice of appearance and motion to disburse the surplus funds to it, alleging that its second mortgage entitled it to the surplus generated from the foreclosure sale.
The trial court held a hearing after which the court ordered disbursement to the Bank as its lien was superior to House hold’s claim. Household appeals that order. In determining who is entitled to surplus funds in a mortgage foreclosure, the general rule is that all encumbrances on mortgaged premises inferior to the mortgage on which the sale is based must be paid in order of time in which they respectively became liens, unless some equitable right demands a different order of payment. Tucker v. Crown Corp., 136 Fla. 517, 183 So. 740, 745 (1938); Waybright v. Turner, 129 Fla. 310, 176 So. 424, 428 (1937).
The lien of the junior mortgage is not extinguished in the foreclosure but is instead transferred from the property to the fund that stands in the place of the property. Waybrigkt, 176 So. at 428.
Household contends that the default against the Bank precludes the Bank from claiming entitlement to the surplus. A default admits only the well pled allegations of the complaint.
Thus, when the Bank defaulted, all it admitted was the superiority of Federal’s lien to its own and Federal’s right to foreclose the Bank’s lien interest in the property. In Schroth v. Cape Coral Bank, 377 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), the court held that a property owner who did not appear in a mortgage foreclosure action until after the sale could still assert a claim to any surplus. The court remanded with directions to the trial court to hold a hearing “to determine the rights to the excess proceeds of all claimants who were defendants in the foreclosure suit, irrespective of whether they filed responsive pleadings.” Id. (emphasis added). See also Hamilton v. Hughes, 737 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Bank of America was named as a defendant in the mortgage foreclosure as a junior mortgagee. It was entitled to assert its claim to the surplus proceeds. We affirm the order of the trial court.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amado Evarito Garcia v. Stewart, 906 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…Conversion Prop., 994 S.W. 2d at 813 (citation omitted). Unlike a junior lienholder’s security interest which is “transferred from the property to the fund that stands in the place of the property,” see Household Finance Services v. Bank of America, 883 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), a senior lienholder’s security interest remains with the property even after the foreclosure sale. See Cone Bros., 193 So. at 290. “After a foreclosure sale, the trial court is required to prioritize the interests of the c…
-
Golindano v. Wells Fargo Bank, 913 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ifinancial did not waive any of its rights as a junior lienholder to the surplus funds just because it allowed a default to be entered against it. Such rights are maintained despite the default. See Household Finance Servs., Inc. v. Bank of America, 883 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).…
-
S.W. Fla. Paradise Prop., Inc. v. Segelke, 111 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…efaulting party from challenging errors occurring in postjudgment proceedings or other matters for which it is not bound under the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint. For example, in Household Finance Services, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., 883 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the Fourth District addressed whether the Bank could assert its entitlement to the surplus funds remaining after a foreclosure sale as a junior mortgagee, even though the Bank had defaulted in the underlying foreclosure action.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Waybright v. Turner, 129 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1937)
- Walter J. Dolan Props., Inc. v. Vonnegut, 133 Fla. 854 (Fla. 1938)
- Schroth v. The Cape Coral Bank, 377 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Sydnor J. Tucker v. Crown Corp., 136 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1938)
- Hamilton v. Hughes, 737 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)