FRANCIS P. DUDLAR
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ETC.
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.
A subordinate lienholder named as a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action is entitled to assert its claim to surplus proceeds in accordance with its priority.
[1] A subordinate lienholder named as a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action is entitled to assert claims to surplus proceeds in accordance with the holder's priority a…
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“Subordinate lienholder' means the holder of a subordinate lien shown on the face of the pleadings as an encumbrance on the property.”
Florida Statute § 45.032(1)(b) definition of subordinate lienholder
Francis P. Dudlar appealed a circuit court decision in a mortgage foreclosure case involving Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The case i…
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 Lien Priority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 45.031(1)(a),(7), Fla. Stat. (2014); § 45.032(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“‘Subordinate lienholder’ means the holder of a subordinate lien shown on the face of the pleadings as an encumbrance on the property. . . .
A subordinate lienholder includes, but is not limited to, a subordinate mortgage . . . .”); Household Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 883 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Bank of America was named as a defendant in the mortgage foreclosure as a junior mortgagee. It was entitled to assert its claim to the surplus proceeds.”); see also JP Morgan Chase Bank v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 929 So. 2d 651, 653-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stating rule that “foreclosure of the first [lien] did not extinguish the second;
it merely transferred the lien from the property to the surplus funds that took its place” and that “a surplus is payable to junior lienholders in accordance with their priority”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Household Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 883 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Tate v. Crosby, 929 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)