CONFEDERATE POINT PARTNERSHIP, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
EMANUEL SCHATTEN ET AL., 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.
Confederate Point Partnership purchased property at a judicial sale and later sought declaratory judgment against the former owners for certain rental receipts and deposits, claiming entitlement to rebates. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by res judicata, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that a purchaser at a judicial sale is bound by the judgment authorizing the sale and cannot later seek to modify its terms.
The trial court correctly dismissed appellant's action with prejudice because a purchaser at a judicial sale is bound by the judgment authorizing the sale and cannot subsequently seek to modify or construe its terms in a separate action. Any claims regarding the rights of the purchaser should have been raised in the original action or through appeal.
[1] A judicial sale, once confirmed, has the effect of a final conclusive judgment and cures all irregularities, misconduct, and unfairness in the making of the sale.
[2] Purchasers of property at a judicial sale and all persons claiming under them are considered privies to the judgment authorizing the sale and are concluded by that judgme…
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“Confirmation of a judicial sale has the effect of a final conclusive judgment and cures all irregularities, misconduct and unfairness in the making of the sale.”
Establishes the binding nature of a confirmed judicial sale and its immunity from subsequent attack
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConfederate Point Partnership purchased real property consisting of an apartment complex at a judicial sale held on October 7, 1971, pursuant to a fin…
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 Judicial Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s final order dismissing its action against appellees with prejudice for failure to file a second amended complaint.
By final judgment rendered on June 15, 1971, and amendment thereto on September 9, 1971, the Circuit Court of Duval County, in Civil Action No. 70-8438, ordered a public sale to the highest bidder *662of the real and personal property of the appellees as partners in Confederate Point Apartments, Ltd., said property consisting of land improved by an apartment complex together with the furnishings therein. The public sale was held on October 7, 1971, and appellant purchased the property. The Certificate of Title was completed and filed on October 20, 1971.
On May 12, 1972, appellant filed against appellees a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking payment from appellees for certain portions of the October, 1971, rental receipts and mortgage interest and for funds on deposit with appellees for the various apartments which were occupied by tenants at the time of the sale. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint upon the grounds, inter alia, that the complaint showed on its face that the matters complained of and sought to be declared and determined were res adjudicata, the same having been conclusively adjudicated in Civil Action No. 70-8438. The motion to dismiss was granted and appellant filed an amended complaint. Said complaint was not entitled a complaint for declaratory judgment, but the relief sought by appellant was the same. Upon the grounds above stated; to wit: that the construction and effect of a previously entered judgment or decree may not be construed in a subsequent action, appellees again moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion was again granted with leave to appellant to file a second amended complaint within a designated time. Appellant having failed to file said second amended complaint within the time allowed, a final order was entered dismissing appellant’s action with prejudice. Appellant herein contends that its amended complaint stated a cause of action and that it was error for the trial court to dismiss this civil action.
We do not agree. Appellant was the successful bidder at a judicial sale ordered in a prior action. By the present action, appellant seeks to alter or add to the terms of said judicial sale by claiming an entitlement to certain rebates. The final judgment and its amendment in Civil Action No. 70-8438, upon which the sale and purchase were based, do not provide for such adjustments to the bid of the successful purchaser.
This judicial sale was held pursuant to Florida Statutes, § 45.031, F.S.A. When appellant received its Certificate of Title, the sale stood confirmed. Florida Statutes, § 45.031(4), F.S.A. Confirmation of a judicial sale has the effect of a final conclusive judgment and cures all irregularities, misconduct and unfairness in the making of the sale. McClanahan v. Mayne, 103 Fla. 600, 138 So. 36 (1931). Purchasers of property at a judicial sale, and all persons claiming under them, are regarded as privies to the judgment authorizing the sale and are concluded by said judgment. 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 810.
In conclusion, appellant’s complaint called upon the trial court to construe, clarify or modify its former judgment of sale or to declare appellant’s rights thereunder. Appellant’s claims could have and should have been made only in the action which gave rise to the sale wherein appellant’s rights were determined. We pause here to note that appellant, if aggrieved by the judgment of sale, could have appealed from the same even though it was not named as a party in the cause. Miller v. Stavros, 174 So.2d 48 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1965). By not acting to protect its rights in the prior action, appellant is now barred from doing so and the trial court correctly granted the respective motions to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Assocs., 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…difying or vacating the judgment expires. Patin v. Popino, 459 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The confirmation of a judicial sale by the issuance of a certificate of title constitutes a final judgment. Confederate Point Partnership Ltd. v. Schatten, 278 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Therefore, in the instant case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate Commercial’s leasehold interest since the court did not retain jurisdiction and the court’s actions took place after the judicial sale and after th…
-
Arsali v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 82 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…to become a party to the action and such third-party purchaser has standing on appeal because “[a] purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale, who is not a named party in the cause, becomes a quasi party”); Confederate Point P’ship, Ltd., v. Schatten, 278 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (stating that “[purchasers of property at a judicial sale, and all persons claiming under them, are regarded as privies to the judgment authorizing the sale,” and noting that if a third-party purchaser was aggrieved by the j…
Authorities Cited
- Elliot L. Miller v. Manelous Stavros In Bankruptcy of Edward J. Kubay and Patricia Kubay, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Zeiters v. State, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Bunt Bishop v. State, 103 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1931)
- McClanahan v. Mayne, 103 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1931)