DMG INVESTMENT TRUST, LLC
v.
DINORAH B. CEPEDA
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 holder of legal title to mortgaged property is an indispensable party defendant in a foreclosure action, and failure to join such a party preserves that party's right of redemption.
[1] A party holding legal title to mortgaged property is an indispensable party defendant in a foreclosure action, and the failure to join such a party improperly deprives th…
[2] The right to redeem mortgaged property is an incident to every mortgage and cannot be extinguished except by due process of law.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“One who holds the legal title to mortgaged property is not only necessary, but is an indispensable, party defendant in a suit to foreclose a mortgage.”
Citing Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan, 117 So. 846, 848 (Fla. 1928)
DMG Investment Trust, LLC appealed a circuit court decision in a mortgage foreclosure matter involving property in Miami-Dade County. The case involve…
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 Necessary Party cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 31, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1537 Lower Tribunal No. 22-22487
________________
DMG Investment Trust, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Dinorah B. Cepeda,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Atlas | Solomon, PLLC, and Eric M. Levine (Stuart), for appellant. Arnaldo Vélez, P.A., and Arnaldo Vélez, for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan, 117 So. 846, 848 (Fla. 1928) (“One who holds the legal title to mortgaged property is not only necessary, but is an indispensable, party defendant in a suit to foreclose a mortgage.”); Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shores Corp., 129 So. 690, 692 (Fla. 1930) (stating “[t]he right to redeem is an incident to every mortgage” and “cannot be extinguished except by due process of law”); MST Corp. v. Caribe Ins. Agency Corp., 314 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Florida law is well settled that [interested parties] who were not joined in a foreclosure action retain the right of redemption.”); Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 942 So. 2d 425, 428–29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding that the failure to join a necessary party in a foreclosure action improperly deprived that party of her equity of redemption).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. James (Willie) Cummings, 930 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2006)…rendered without their joinder); Bastida v. Batchelor, 418 So. 2d 297, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“An indispensable party [is] one without whom the rights of others cannot be determined.”). As we stated in Oakland Properties Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 So. 846, 848 (1928) (quoting Indian River Mfg. Co. v. Wooten, 48 Fla. 271, 37 So. 731, 731 (1904) (syllabus)): The general rule in equity is that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of the suit, must be…
-
Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…rially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of a suit, must be made parties either as complainants or defendants so that a complete decree may be made binding upon all parties.” Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 So. 846, 848 (1928) (emphasis added). See Robinson v. Howe, 35 Fla. 73, 17 So. 368, 370 (1895); Brady v. Myers, 413 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Here, Daugherty sued the Association and the members of the board of the Association in their represent…
-
State v. Fuller, 134 Fla. 212 (Fla. 1938)…nant so that a complete decree may be made binding upon all the parties, and cites State, ex rel. Long, v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199; Baynard v. City of St. Petersburg, 130 Fla. 471, 178 So. 150; Oakland Properties Corp. v. Hogan, 96 Fla. 40, 117 So. 846; Bannon v. Trammell, 96 Fla. 408, 118 So. 167. We have carefully reviewed each of these authorities in the light of counsel’s contention and, while we have the greatest deference for the opinion of learned counsel engaged in this case, it is just im…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lucky Nation, LLC v. Al-Maghazchi (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 942 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- MST Corp. v. Caribe Ins. Agency Corp., 314 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)