SVI CAPITAL, LLC, APPELLANT,
v.
NICHOLAS R. COON AND DEANNA DUNSTAN, HIS WIFE, PAUL C. CONDON AND MARY ELLEN CONDON, HIS WIFE, AMERICAN AIR CONDITIONING DISTRIBUTORS LLC D/B/A FLORIDA AIR CONDITIONING, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, COASTAL SUPPLY COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SASSO AIR CONDITIONING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
SVI Capital LLC appealed a trial court's order denying a deficiency judgment against mortgage defendants Coon and Condon following foreclosure. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that original notes and mortgages already submitted to the court during the foreclosure proceeding established the defendants' liability for the deficiency.
The trial court erred in failing to find Coon and Condon liable for the deficiency judgment. The original notes and mortgages, which had been surrendered to the court by Legacy during the final judgment of foreclosure, were already in evidence and established the defendants' liability.
[1] A deficiency judgment may be entered against a borrower following a foreclosure sale when the sale proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the outstanding loan amount.
[2] A court may take judicial notice of documents previously submitted and considered by the court in connection with an earlier judgment in the same case.
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“the original notes and mortgages were surrendered to the court by Legacy at the time of the final judgment of foreclosure. Because these original documents, which were already in evidence, established Coon's and Condon's liability, the trial court erred in failing to find them liable for the deficiency judgment.”
This quote establishes the core holding that documents already in the court's possession from the foreclosure proceeding provide sufficient evidence of liability for the deficiency judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoon and Condon defaulted on a construction loan and entered into a forbearance agreement with Legacy Bank of Florida, agreeing to entry of a final ju…
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 Forbearance Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, SVI Capital LLC (“SVI”), appeals an order determining that defendants Nicholas Coon and Paul Condon are not hable for a deficiency following a. final judgment of foreclosure. We reverse. .
After defaulting on-a construction loan, Coon, with his wife Deanna Dunston, and Condon, with his wife Mary Ellen Condon, entered into a stipulation of settlement and a forbearance agreement with Legacy Bank of Florida (“Legacy”), whereby they agreed to the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure upon any further default. Subsequently, a final judgment of foreclosure was entered against Coon, Condon, and their spouses, based upon the original promissory notes and mortgages which had been filed with the court. The court retained jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment. Thereafter, Legacy assigned its rights to SVI, which was substituted as party plaintiff.
After the property sold at a public auction for less than the outstanding amount of the loan, SVI sought a deficiency judgment. The trial court ultimately found that there was a deficiency, but determined that Coon and Condon were not liable for it, stating:
The only attempt at proving independent liability was the Plaintiffs generic request that the court take Judicial Notice of non'specified documents which are part of 78 separate docket entries in the Court File. Other than citing FS 90.202(b) (Matters which may be judicially noticed) no attempt was made to establish a predicate for' the admissibility of any documents.
SVI contends that the court erred in failing to consider the original notes and mortgages, which had been submitted and considered by the court in connection with the earlier final judgment of foreclosure.
We reverse on authority of Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Clarke, 87 So.3d 58, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), in which-this Court held that a mortgagee’s submission of a copy of the note satisfied the best evidence rule where the original nóte had already been surrendered’to the court in an earlier summary’ judgment hearing. Similarly, in the present case, the original notes and mortgages were surrendered to the court by Legacy at the time of the final judgment of foreclosure. Because these original documents, which were already in evidence, established Coon’s and Condon’s liabiíity, the trial court erred in failing to find them hable for the deficiency judgment.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, 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)…it. See One S. Ocean Drive 2000, Ltd. v. One Ocean Boca, LLC, 182 So. 3d 872, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); cf. Barry v. Vantium Capital, Inc., 198 So. 3d 43, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2075, 2015 WL 5166282 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 4, 2015); SVI Capital, LLC v. Coon, 182 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). .We are cognizant of federal district court opinions finding either that “the doctrine of merger does not apply to mortgages or affect the enforceability of a mortgage obligation,” Rojas v. Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P…
Authorities Cited
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for First Franklin Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-FF7 v. Ezra Clarke, 87 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)