MARKET TAMPA INVESTMENTS, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
GOLDIA MARIE STOBAUGH, A/K/A GOLDIA M. PARSLEY, A/K/A GOLDIA S. PARSLEY; BRANDON BROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; CITIFINANCIAL, INC., D/B/A CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; ARCHIE J. PARSLEY, A/K/A ARCHIE J. PARSLEY, II; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR GSMPS 2006-RPI, 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.
Market Tampa Investments appealed a foreclosure judgment, challenging both the trial court's denial of its motion to intervene and the merits of the foreclosure. The court affirmed the denial of the intervention motion but dismissed the appeal on the merits, holding that Market Tampa, having acquired the property after the foreclosure complaint was filed, lacked standing to challenge the underlying foreclosure judgment.
Market Tampa has standing to appeal the denial of its motion to intervene because it filed that motion and an order denying intervention is final and appealable by the movant. However, because the trial court properly denied Market Tampa's intervention, Market Tampa was not a party to the foreclosure proceedings and therefore lacks standing to appeal the merits of the foreclosure judgment.
[1] A party who obtains property by quitclaim deed after a foreclosure complaint and lis pendens have been filed is a stranger to the litigation and lacks standing to appeal…
[2] An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to and appealable by the movant.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to and appealable by the movant.”
Establishes that Market Tampa has standing to appeal the denial of its intervention motion, distinguishing this from standing to appeal the underlying judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. Bank National Association filed a foreclosure complaint against Goldia Stobaugh. After the foreclosure complaint and lis pendens were filed, Mark…
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 Quitclaim Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Market Tampa Investments, LLC, appeals a final judgment of foreclosure entered against Goldia Stobaugh and in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, challenging (1) the trial court’s denial of Market Tampa’s motion to intervene or substitute at the final hearing on U.S. Bank’s complaint for foreclosure and (2) the merits of the foreclosure judgment. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that Market Tampa, who obtained the property by quitclaim deed from Stobaugh after the foreclosure complaint and lis pendens had been filed, is a stranger to the litigation and thus cannot appeal the final judgment. Market Tampa filed a motion to intervene or substitute below and thus has standing to appeal the trial court’s denial of that motion, which we treat as being incorporated into the final judgment. See Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So.2d 1165, 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“An order denying a motion to intervene is final as to and ap-pealable by the movant.” (quoting Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So.2d 565, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001))); cf. Yankeetown Mgrnt., LLC v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 164 So.3d 744, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“We dismiss the appeal because the appellant, Yankeetown Management[,] LLC, lacks standing to challenge the final judgment of foreclosure in this case. Yankeetown did not seek to intervene before the final judgment was rendered; therefore, it is a legal stranger to the action.”). However, because the trial court did not permit Market Tampa to intervene or to be substituted as a party, a ruling that was proper under the facts of this case,1 Market Tampa was not a party to the foreclosure proceedings and does not have standing to appeal the merits of the final judgment of foreclosure.
Accordingly, we deny in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss and affirm the final judgment of foreclosure to the extent that it includes the ruling on the motion to intervene or substitute. We grant U.S. Bank’s motion in part and dismiss this appeal to the extent that Market Tampa challenges the foreclosure.
Motion denied in part and granted in part; judgment affirmed in part; appeal dismissed in part.
CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…re action in which a lis pendens has been filed, the purchaser generally is not entitled to intervene in the pending foreclosure action.” Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); see also Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming trial court’s ruling that third-party purchaser, who had obtained the property after the bank’s foreclosure complaint and lis pendens had been filed, could not inter [*1090] vene in foreclosure proceeding); U.S. Bank Na…
-
Bonafide Props. Only Under 14329 Vill. View Dr Land Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 198 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ide now appeals. ■“[WJhen property is purchased during a pending foreclosure action in which a lis pendens has been filed, the purchaser generally is not entitled to intervene in the pending foreclosure action.” Market Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31, 32 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)); see also Whitburn, LLC, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“Because Whitburn purchased the…
-
YHT & Assocs., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 177 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…t an owner who obtained title during the foreclosure proceeding and was denied intervention could appeal the denial of intervention, but in so doing it could not challenge the merits of the final judgment. See Market Tampa Invests., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31, 2015 WL 5131679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Y.H. v. F.L.H. and K.W.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Bymel v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Kramer A. Litvak v. Scylla Props., LLC, 946 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Yankeetown Mgmt., LLC v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 164 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Mitchell v. State, 164 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)