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.
Space Coast Credit Union v. Goldman
Citation: 262 So. 3d 836Docket: 18-0252
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 17, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, in an opinion filed on December 18, 2018, addresses an appeal by Space Coast Credit Union regarding a trial court's order that permitted Asset Recoveries, LLC to intervene in a foreclosure action. The court found that the trial court erred in allowing the intervention since Asset Recoveries had purchased the property after Space Coast had filed a notice of lis pendens. Space Coast initiated foreclosure proceedings against Eric Goldman in December 2015, and after the decedent’s death was disclosed, the court set aside a final judgment to allow the addition of necessary parties, including the estate and heirs. A new notice of lis pendens was recorded, and a crossclaim was filed by the decedent’s brother against the estate and heirs for mortgage payments, leading to a foreclosure judgment that resulted in the property's sale to Asset Recoveries. Asset Recoveries sought to intervene, citing concerns over excessive attorney's fees claimed by Space Coast and the handling of prior payments. The trial court permitted limited intervention for questioning witnesses and determining the amount owed. However, according to Florida law, a purchaser during a pending foreclosure action with an existing lis pendens generally cannot intervene. The appellate court noted that while Asset Recoveries filed a motion to vacate the order while the appeal was pending, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the order under appeal. The court reaffirmed that a buyer purchases property at their own risk when aware of a pending foreclosure, upholding the original order as the lis pendens was filed before Asset Recoveries' acquisition of the property. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order allowing intervention. Asset Recoveries was deemed to have notice of an ongoing foreclosure action, which negated its right to intervene in that action. Legal precedent establishes that a property purchaser, when aware of a recorded notice of lis pendens linked to a foreclosure, cannot intervene in the proceedings. The case of Tikhomirov v. Bank of New York Mellon supports this principle, as does Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat’l Bank, which affirmed a trial court's denial of intervention based on similar circumstances. Although Asset Recoveries cited Bymel v. 159 So. 3d as a case where intervention was allowed, the specifics of Bymel presented a unique exception; the third-party purchaser had an active relationship with the lender and was led to believe that the foreclosure would be resolved favorably after an approved short sale. In contrast, no such relationship exists between Asset Recoveries and Space Coast. Consequently, the order allowing Asset Recoveries to intervene was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Any post-opinion motions are to be filed within seven days, with responses permitted within five days thereafter.