ARTHUR J. MORBURGER
v.
YELLOW FUNDING CORP.
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.
Arthur J. Morburger appealed a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Yellow Funding Corp. and a postjudgment order directing issuance of a certificate of title. Morburger argued the foreclosure action should have been dismissed because Yellow Funding was administratively dissolved and thus lacked authority to pursue the action. The court affirmed both orders, holding that administratively dissolved corporations retain the right to wind up their business affairs, including prosecuting foreclosure actions.
The court affirmed both the final judgment of foreclosure and the postjudgment order, holding that administratively dissolved corporations retain the right to wind up their business affairs and prosecute foreclosure actions. An administrative dissolution does not preclude a corporation from pursuing actions necessary to wind up its business affairs.
[1] An administratively dissolved corporation may prosecute or defend against an action to wind up its business affairs, including a foreclosure action, and is not precluded…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 right to wind up under section 607.1405 'applies equally to corporations that are voluntarily dissolved and to corporations that are administratively dissolved.'”
The court cited Hock v. Triad Guaranty Ins. Corp. to support the proposition that administrative dissolution does not strip a corporation of the right to wind up its affairs.
Yellow Funding Corp., an administratively dissolved corporation, initiated a foreclosure action against Arthur J. Morburger. The trial court entered a…
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 Discretionary Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ Nos. 3D21-318 and 3D21-881 Lower Tribunal No. 19-16332 ________________ Arthur J. Morburger,
Appellant,
vs.
Yellow Funding Corp., et al., Appellees.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Arthur J. Morburger, in proper person. Michel O. Weisz, P.A., and Michel O. Weisz, for appellees. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. EMAS, J.
In this consolidated appeal, we review the final judgment of foreclosure against Arthur J. Morburger in favor of Yellow Funding Corp. (“Yellow Funding”) and a postjudgment order overruling Morburger’s objections to the foreclosure sale and directing the clerk of court to issue a certificate of title.
We find no merit in the claims raised by Morburger and affirm both orders.
As to the final judgment, Morburger contends that the operative complaint should have been dismissed because Yellow Funding was administratively dissolved and was therefore not authorized to pursue the foreclosure action against him under section 607.1405, Fla. Stat. (2019). We reject this argument and reaffirm our alignment with the holding of our sister court in Hock v. Triad Guaranty Ins. Corp., 292 So. 3d 37, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), that the right to wind up under section 607.1405 “applies equally to corporations that are voluntarily dissolved and to corporations that are administratively dissolved.” See New Life Rehab Med. Ctr. v. Mercury Ins.
Co. of Fla., No. 3D21-112, 2021 WL 3745213 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 25, 2021) (concluding “we align ourselves with this body of decisional authority and hold that section 607.1622, Florida Statutes, ‘does not preclude a corporation that has been administratively dissolved for failing to file an annual report from prosecuting or defending against an action in order to wind up its business affairs’ ”) (quoting Hock, 292 So. 3d at 41).
We also affirm the trial court’s postjudgment order overruling Morburger’s objections to the foreclosure sale and directing the clerk to issue the certificate of title. See § 45.031, Fla. Stat. (2020); Phoenix Holding, LLC
v. Martinez, 27 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reiterating: “Whether the
complaining party has made the showing necessary to set aside a foreclosure sale is a discretionary decision by the trial court, which may be reversed only when the court has grossly abused its discretion”); U-M Pub., Inc. v. Home News Pub. Co., 279 So. 2d 379, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Can Financial, LLC v. Niklewicz, 307 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). See also Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming order denying motion to vacate foreclosure sale and overruling objection to sale where bid price was $100 but defendant failed to meet burden of establishing mistake, fraud, or irregularity in the conduct of the sale).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilia Cordata, LLC v. Yellow Funding Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…appeal (appellate case numbers 3D21-318 and 3D21- 881), this Court affirmed both the foreclosure judgment and the trial court’s order denying Morburger’s post-judgment motion objecting to the foreclosure sale. See Morburger v. Yellow Funding Corp., 329 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), review denied, SC21-1730, 2022 WL 852766 (Fla. Mar. 23, 2022). While the consolidated appeal was pending, Morburger, on April 4, 2021, filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 motion in the trial court seeking to set aside t…
Authorities Cited
- U-M Publ'g, Inc. v. Home News Publ'g Co., Inc., 279 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Phoenix Holding, LLC v. Martinez, 27 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- NEW Life Rehab Med. Ctr. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 292 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Morburger v. Yellow Funding Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)