Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2D14–5563.,2D14–5563. |
Citation | 190 So.3d 1087 |
Parties | WHITBURN, LLC, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Basheer Ally; Rooshnee Ally; and Rivercrest Community Association, Inc., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stuart Jay Levine and Heather A. DeGrave of Walters, Levine, Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Sara F. Holladay–Tobias, Emily Rottmann, and Taylor L. Broadhead of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
Whitburn, LLC, appeals an order denying its motion to cancel foreclosure sale in the mortgage foreclosure action filed by Wells Fargo, N.A., against property owners Basheer Ally and Rooshnee Ally. We affirm because Whitburn, LLC, does not have standing to challenge the foreclosure sale.
On December 7, 2012, Wells Fargo filed a one-count complaint for first mortgage foreclosure against the Allys and Rivercrest Community Association, Inc., in Hillsborough County case number 12–CA–019138. Wells Fargo's complaint stated that the mortgage was recorded on April 25, 2006, in Official Records Book 16390, Page 1983, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County. Wells Fargo filed a notice of lis pendens the same day it filed the complaint, and the notice of lis pendens was recorded on December 17, 2012. Rivercrest answered the complaint on January 4, 2013, admitting that it “may claim an interest in the subject property.” Rivercrest also asserted as affirmative defenses that it has priority over all creditors except the first mortgage and that any owner, including a purchaser, is liable for all assessments that come due under section 720.3085(2), Florida Statutes (2011).
Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment and entered a final judgment of foreclosure on March 17, 2014. The final judgment set the sale date for July 7, 2014, but Wells Fargo mistakenly cancelled the sale, intending to cancel the sale in another case. The sale was later rescheduled for September 26, 2014.
On September 24, 2014, Whitburn filed an emergency motion to cancel the sale. Whitburn claimed that it is the record title owner of the property as reflected in a certificate of title filed July 2, 2013, and recorded on July 9, 2013. The certificate of title was entered in Hillsborough County circuit court case number 12–CC–27517, which appears to have been an action for lien foreclosure filed by Rivercrest Community Association against the Allys. In its motion to cancel sale in Wells Fargo's case, Whitburn claimed that Wells Fargo failed to provide an estoppel letter in accordance with section 701.04, Florida Statutes (2014), thus abrogating Whitburn's right to redeem the property prior to sale.
The trial court granted Whitburn's motion to cancel the foreclosure sale and rescheduled the sale for November 18, 2014. On November 14, 2014, Whitburn filed another emergency motion to cancel sale, again asserting its status as record title owner of the property and alleging that Wells Fargo failed to comply with section 701.04. Whitburn also alleged that the notice of sale failed to comply with section 702.035, Florida Statutes (2014). On November 17, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying Whitburn's motion to cancel sale on the basis that Whitburn does not have standing.
On appeal, Whitburn argues that the trial court erred in finding that it has no standing because Whitburn is a record title owner of the property and has a clear interest in the property. We first point out that Whitburn was not a party to the foreclosure proceeding filed by Wells Fargo. See Whiteside v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia Cty., 798 So.2d 859, 859–60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (); see also Warshaw–Seattle, Inc. v. Clark, 85 So.2d 623, 625 (Fla.1955) ( . However, by moving to cancel the sale and asserting its rights to the property, Whitburn essentially sought to intervene in the foreclosure sale proceedings.1
It is well settled that “when property is purchased during a pending foreclosure action in which a lis pendens has been filed, the purchaser generally is not entitled to intervene in the pending foreclosure action.” Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So.3d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; see also Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ( ); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bevans, 138 So.3d 1185, 1188–89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ( ); Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat'l Bank, 419 So.2d 1107, 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ().
This rule has recently been applied to a purchaser's attempt to intervene after final judgment has been entered in the foreclosure proceeding. In De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A., 170 So.3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the homeowners' association filed an action to foreclose on a lien for unpaid assessments. While that action was pending, the bank filed an action to foreclose on a superior mortgage. Id. The bank also filed an accompanying lis pendens. Id. A foreclosure sale was then held in the homeowners' association's action, and a third party purchased the property. Id. Final judgment was then entered in the bank's foreclosure proceeding, and the third party moved to intervene in the bank's case “based on an interest in [the] property acquired through the foreclosure sale resulting from” the homeowners' association's action. Id. The Fourth District held that the third-party purchaser could not intervene because the purchaser had bought the property after the bank's lis pendens had been filed. Id. at 930. The court also held that the interests of justice did not require intervention because the purchaser could protect its interest in the property by exercising its statutory right of redemption under section 45.0315, Florida Statutes (2013). 170 So.3d at 931.
The notice of lis pendens filed by Wells Fargo in December 2012 put Whitburn on notice of the pending lawsuit by Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo's claim to the property.
Adhin v. First Horizon Home Loans, 44 So.3d 1245, 1251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citations omitted).2 Because Whitburn purchased the property in June 2013 after Wells Fargo filed its notice of lis pendens in December 2012, Whitburn took the property subject to the outcome of the litigation in Wells Fargo's case, including the foreclosure sale to which Wells Fargo was entitled as a result of the judgment entered in its favor.
Whitburn makes no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green Emerald Homes, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp.
...after Wells Fargo initiated the foreclosure action and filed its notice of lis pendens"); see also Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that purchaser subsequent to lis pendens "took the property subject to the outcome of the litigation ......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Cope, Case No. 2D18-3696
...mortgage is generally sufficient to give subsequent purchasers constructive notice of the mortgage. See Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (explaining that a party did have constructive notice of the other party's superior interest in a propert......
-
Pealer v. Wilmington Trust Nat'l Ass'n
...with a legally cognizable interest that would be affected by the outcome of the litigation.’ " Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 190 So.3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Centerstate Bank Cent. Fla., N.A. v. Krause , 87 So.3d 25, 28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ). "The issue of whethe......
-
Pirate's Treasure, Inc. v. City of Dunedin
...to open the courthouse doors, Brown v. Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654, 662 (Fla. 1980). See also Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087, 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[T]o have standing, a party must demonstrate a direct and articulable interest in the controversy, which will be af......
-
Chapter 10-2 Third-Party Purchasers
...4th DCA 2015); Market Tampa Invs, LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31, 32 at n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Bonafide Properties v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 So. 3d 694, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Dema Invs., LLC v. Wells Fargo ......
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...judgment of foreclosure over the purchaser's objection based on the mortgage being usurious); Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087, 1091-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (a third-party purchaser's "interest in [a] foreclosure proceeding is not a legally cognizable interest because ......
-
Chapter 10-2 Third-Party Purchasers
...DCA 2015); Market Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31, 32 at n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Bonafide Properties v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 So. 3d 694, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Dema Invs, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank......
-
Chapter 6-3 The Parties
...of America, N.A. v. Mirabella Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 238 So. 3d 405, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087, 1091-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); see also Greenwald v. Graham, 130 So. 608, 611 (Fla. 1930) (finding that a purchaser pendente lite "takes the ris......