Florida statutes regarding consolidating similar cases gossip girl stars dating real life

The borrower moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the foreclosure judge’s reservation of jurisdiction in the foreclosure judgment, and due to the fact that the mortgagee’s foreclosure complaint included a request for a deficiency judgment.

The mortgagee moved to consolidate the two cases, which was granted. After a bench trial of the consolidated cases, the court in the consolidated action entered judgment for the mortgagee, minus a 0,000 credit for the value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale, resulting in a balance owed of just over 9,000.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal recently affirmed a monetary judgment against a borrower in a follow up action to collect the balance owed on a note secured by a mortgage.

The follow up action was consolidated with a prior foreclosure action in which the court reserved jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment.

The Appellate Court distinguished the case at bar from the situation where a deficiency judgment was pled in the foreclosure complaint and the trial court reserved jurisdiction to enter a deficiency, noting that in the case at bar, the trial court in the foreclosure action (into which the follow up action on the note was consolidated) retained jurisdiction by virtue of the consolidation of the two cases and the borrower did not oppose consolidation.

Important to the Appellate Court was the fact that the trial judge treated the case as a deficiency proceeding rather than an action at law.

A copy of the opinion is available at: https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2014/0930/140930_DC05_05012015_101049_

The plaintiff bank sued to foreclose its mortgage on the borrower’s property in 2008.

290.016 for the expiration of the Florida Enterprise Zone Act. 11 of the Internal Revenue Code plus the amount to which a tax rate specified in s.

That portion of the ad valorem school taxes paid or incurred for the taxable year which is equal to the amount of the credit allowable for the taxable year under s. This subparagraph shall expire on the date specified in s. 1201(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code are applied for federal income tax purposes.s.

290.016 for the expiration of the Florida Enterprise Zone Act. 114-113, for property placed in service after December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2021.

Finally, the Appellate Court found that any procedural error by the trial judge was harmless error, because the borrower made no showing on appeal how he was prejudiced or harmed by how the consolidated cases proceeded or the manner in which the trial court calculated the amount owed.

Accordingly, the final judgment below was affirmed.

Leave a Reply