Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Penton v. INTERCREDIT BANK, NA
Citations: 943 So. 2d 863; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19070; 2006 WL 3302543Docket: 3D05-2929
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 14, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by Pedro and Yaknel Penton against Intercredit Bank, N.A. regarding a mortgage foreclosure action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions on three key issues: the allowance of Intercredit to amend its complaint, the court's subject matter jurisdiction, and the appropriateness of venue in Miami-Dade County. Carlos Penton, initially not named as a defendant, was served with a "John Doe" summons and later substituted into the case following a default. The trial court's order to substitute Carlos Penton for "John Doe" was upheld, with the appellate court noting that the trial court acted within its authority under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(c). The court also addressed the argument regarding subject matter jurisdiction over property in Hendry County. Appellants contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the property was outside the circuit's territorial boundaries. However, the court cited Florida Statutes Section 702.04, which allows foreclosure of mortgages involving lands in multiple counties to be conducted in any one of those counties. The appellate court rejected the appellants' narrow interpretation of this statute, affirming that it applies to both contiguous and non-contiguous properties, as supported by a 1959 Attorney General opinion. Consequently, the appellate court upheld all trial court rulings, affirming the substitution of defendants and the jurisdictional findings.