WESTON ORLANDO PARK, INC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
FAIRWINDS CREDIT UNION, 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.
Weston Orlando Park and related entities appealed from a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Fairwinds Credit Union. The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment but reversed the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction regarding Fairwinds's claims for breach of the promissory notes, holding that such claims merged into the final foreclosure judgment.
The trial court may not reserve jurisdiction over breach of promissory note claims separate from foreclosure claims because the debt represented by the notes merges into the final foreclosure judgment. However, Fairwinds retains the right to pursue a deficiency judgment and enforce guaranty agreements.
[1] A debt reduced to final judgment merges into the final judgment and loses its prejudgment identity.
[2] When a valid and final judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff, the original debt or cause of action upon which an adjudication is predicated merges into the final j…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The doctrine of merger provides that when a valid and final judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff, the original debt or cause of action upon which an adjudication is predicated merges into the final judgment, and, consequently, the cause's independent existence terminates.”
Establishes the core legal principle that defeats the trial court's reservation of jurisdiction over the promissory note claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeston Orlando Park, Inc., Weston Orlando Hotel, Inc., Weston Orlando Five, Inc., Pablo A. Marulanda, Alicia Marulanda, and Fugleberg Koch Architects,…
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 Action On Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
Weston Orlando Park, Inc., Weston Orlando Hotel, Inc., Weston Orlando Five, Inc., Pablo A. Marulanda, Alicia Marulan-da, and Fugleberg Koch Architects, Inc. appeal from a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Fairwinds Credit Union. We affirm in all respects, except as to the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction regarding Fairwinds’s claims for breach of the promissory notes.
The trial court could not reserve jurisdiction on Fairwinds’s claims for breach of the promissory notes, separate from the claims for foreclosure, because the debt represented by the notes had merged into the final judgment. The doctrine of merger provides that when a valid and final judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff, the original debt or cause of action upon which an adjudication is predicated merges into the final judgment, and, consequently, the cause’s independent existence terminates. Diamond R. Fertilizer Co., Inc. v. Lake Packing P’ship, 743 So.2d 547, 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); see Vernon v. Serv. Trucking, Inc., 565 So.2d 905, 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“[A] debt reduced to final judgment merges into the final judgment and loses its prejudgment identity.”). As such, the promissory notes and the mortgages merged into the final judgment. Nack Holdings, LLC v. Kalb, 13 So.3d 92, 94 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“The mortgage is merged into the judgment, is thereby extinguished, and ‘loses its identity.’ ”). And, a subsequent action for the same cause on the notes and mortgages is barred. 32 Fla. Jur. 2d Judgment and Decree § 116 (1994); see Sunshine Utils. Equip., Inc. v. Treasure Coast Utils., Inc., 421 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
However, Fairwinds continues to have a right to pursue a deficiency judgment against the obligors and to demand the remaining indebtedness from the Marulan-das under the guaranty agreements. See LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Cacciamani, 924 So.2d 930, 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding action on guaranty and foreclosure not inconsistent remedies); Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corp., 145 So.2d 523, 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962) (stating that final decree in foreclosure action does not dispose of deficiency question since it cannot be determined until after decree entered whether sale price of property being foreclosed is excessive or insufficient to satisfy liquidated amount set out in final decree). On remand, the trial court shall strike the reservation of jurisdiction on the promissory note counts. See generally Jessup v. Cowger & Miller Mortg. Co., 505 So.2d 687, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aluia v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., 205 So. 3d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…avor of a plaintiff, the original debt or cause of action upon which an adjudication is predicated merges into the final judgment, and, consequently, the cause’s independent existence terminates.” Weston Orlando Park, Inc. v. Fairwinds Credit Union, 86 So. 3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); cf. § 702.08 (“Whenever a decree of foreclosure has been so rescinded, vacated, and set aside ... the mortgage, together with its lien and the debt thereby secured, shall be, both in law and equity, ... fully restored in a…
-
Webber v. D'Agostino, 251 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Cobb v. Durando, 111 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…this single cause of action would have merged into that judgment. See Whitehurst v. Camp, 699 So. 2d 679, 682-83 (Fla.1997); Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Perkins, 445 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Fla.1983); Weston Orlando Park, Inc. v. Fairwinds Credit Union, 86 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Absent some exceptional legal gymnastics, the wife would not have a cause of action to pursue following this partial payment. Even if this case involved a proposal for settlement in which a release was contemplated, absent spec…
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
- Kurkjian v. Fish Carburetor Corp., 145 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Nack Holdings, LLC v. Kalb, 13 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Diamond R. Fertilizer Co., Inc. v. Lake Packing P'ship, 743 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Sunshine Utils. Equip., Inc. v. Treasure Coast Utils., Inc., 421 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Davie L. Vernon v. Serv. Trucking, Inc., 565 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Cacciamani, 924 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Jessup v. Cowger & Miller Mortg. Co., Inc., 505 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)