MERCEDES J. FRANKLIN AND DAVID GANTT, APPELLANTS,
v.
REGIONS BANK, AS SUCCESSOR TO UNION PLANTERS BANK, N.A., MARK EDWARDS, LTD., 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.
Appellants, as assignees of mortgage foreclosure deficiency rights, sought to join an underlying foreclosure action to obtain a deficiency decree. The circuit court denied the joinder motion on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, finding the record insufficient to determine whether the court's decision was supported by an alternative theory, such as an automatic bankruptcy stay.
While the circuit court had discretion under section 702.06, Florida Statutes, to allow the appellants to join the action post-foreclosure to pursue a deficiency decree, the appellate court could not determine from the limited record whether the court's denial was supported by an alternative theory, such as an automatic bankruptcy stay. The appellants retain the right to file a separate action to recover the deficiency under section 702.06, provided no automatic stay exists.
[1] A circuit court has discretion to allow assignees of the right to recover a mortgage foreclosure deficiency to join the underlying action to seek a deficiency decree.
[2] An appellate court cannot determine if a trial court's judgment is unsupported by evidence or an alternative theory without a transcript of the hearing.
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 intelligence“In all suits for the foreclosure of mortgages ... [,] the entry of a deficiency decree for any portion of a deficiency, should one exist, shall be within the sound judicial discretion of the court, but the complainant shall also have the right to sue at common law to recover such deficiency.”
Establishes that courts have discretion to enter deficiency decrees post-foreclosure under Florida Statutes section 702.06
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMercedes Franklin and David Gantt were assignees of the right to recover a mortgage foreclosure deficiency. They filed a post-foreclosure motion to jo…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, who are assignees of the right to recover a mortgage foreclosure deficiency, filed a post-foreclosure motion to join the underlying action to seek a deficiency decree. The circuit court de*622nied the motion, stating in its order that it lacked jurisdiction to join the appellants in the action. The court’s order did not provide further detail. This appeal followed. We affirm.
The appellants argue that the circuit court had jurisdiction to join them in the action. The appellants note that, in the foreclosure judgment, the court reserved jurisdiction to enter a deficiency decree. The appellants further rely on section 702.06, Florida Statutes (2008), which provides, in pertinent part:
In all suits for the foreclosure of mortgages ... [,] the entry of a deficiency decree for any portion of a deficiency, should one exist, shall be within the sound judicial discretion of the court, but the complainant shall also have the right to sue at common law to recover such deficiency....
§ 702.06, Fla. Stat. (2008).
We agree that, under section 702.06, the circuit court had the discretion, post-foreclosure, to allow the appellants to join the underlying action to pursue the deficiency decree. However, the appellants have not provided us with a transcript of the hearing before the circuit court to allow us to determine whether the court’s decision was supported by an alternative theory. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).
From our review of the limited record, we can speculate as to one alternative theory why the circuit court may have denied the motion for what it referred to as lack of jurisdiction. Along with the motion for joinder, the appellants filed a motion for deficiency decree which referenced the mortgagor’s bankruptcy. Perhaps the court believed that, due to the bankruptcy, any action against the mortgagor was automatically stayed.
This alternative theory cannot be dispelled without a transcript of the hearing before the circuit court. Therefore, we are compelled to affirm. Our decision is without prejudice to the appellants’ right under section 702.06 to file a separate action to recover the deficiency, provided that no automatic stay exists due to the mortgagor’s bankruptcy.
Affirmed.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)