Mitchell v. Federal National Mortgage Association

763 So. 2d 358, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8092, 1998 WL 374836
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 8, 1998
Docket97-1911
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 358 (Mitchell v. Federal National Mortgage Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 763 So. 2d 358, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8092, 1998 WL 374836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

763 So.2d 358 (1998)

Marzell MITCHELL, Jr., Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 97-1911.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1998.

Marzell Mitchell, Jr., Stone Mountain, Georgia, pro se.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the original mortgagor of certain real property, conveyed his entire interest therein to his daughter by warranty deed in 1981. In 1996, appellee filed a foreclosure action with respect to the subject property without joining appellant as a party defendant, but appellant nevertheless filed an answer with affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The trial court subsequently granted appellee's motion to strike appellant's pleadings based on its finding that appellant was not a party to the action.

Appellant claims that he had standing in this foreclosure action because he was the original and remaining mortgagor on the property. In Dennis v. Ivey, 134 Fla. 181, 185, 183 So. 624, 626 (1938), the supreme court held that "[w]hen mortgagors have conveyed all their rights and interests in and to the mortgaged property to other *359 parties, such mortgagors are neither necessary nor proper parties to a suit to foreclose unless a deficiency decree is sought." (citations omitted). Because appellee did not seek a deficiency judgment against appellant, he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the foreclosure suit. We therefore affirm the trial court's order striking appellant's pleadings based on its finding that appellant was a nonparty.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Sudhoff v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
942 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Sudhoff v. FEDERAL NAT. MORTG. ASS'N
942 So. 2d 425 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
South Palm Beach Investments, Inc. v. Regatta Trading Ltd.
789 So. 2d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
763 So. 2d 358, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8092, 1998 WL 374836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-federal-national-mortgage-association-fladistctapp-1998.