Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Equitec Leasing Investors 1978

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Equitec Leasing Investors 1978

446 So. 2d 1155, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1984

DocketNo. 83-856

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 1155 (Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Equitec Leasing Investors 1978) 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

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Equitec Leasing Investors 1978, 446 So. 2d 1155, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12185 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Southeast Bank appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Equitec Leasing Investors in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The summary judgment was granted on grounds that the ownership of the property being foreclosed had been determined in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.

We have thoroughly reviewed the matter and hold Southeast Bank collaterally es-topped from relitigating the ownership in the state court herein. Freehling v. MGIC Financial Corporation, 437 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), holds this doctrine applicable under the circumstances of this case. The major contested issue on appeal has been whether the debtor-in-possession and the bank were parties in privity in the bankruptcy proceeding. See In Re Wesco Products Co., 22 B.R. 107 (N.D.Ill.1982), and Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 366 F.Supp. 901 (N.D.Fla.1978), aff'd. 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975). In addition, the bank was bound as a “successor in interest” by the bankruptcy court judgment in that its interest was entirely dependent upon the ownership interest of the debtor-in-possession. We reject all of appellants’ arguments that ownership was not actually litigated in the bankruptcy ease.

AFFIRMED. '

BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Southeast Bank appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Equitec Leasing Investors in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The summary judgment was granted on grounds that the ownership of the property being foreclosed had been determined in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.

We have thoroughly reviewed the matter and hold Southeast Bank collaterally es-topped from relitigating the ownership in the state court herein. Freehling v. MGIC Financial Corporation, 437 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), holds this doctrine applicable under the circumstances of this case. The major contested issue on appeal has been whether the debtor-in-possession and the bank were parties in privity in the bankruptcy proceeding. See In Re Wesco Products Co., 22 B.R. 107 (N.D.Ill.1982), and Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 366 F.Supp. 901 (N.D.Fla.1978), aff'd. 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975). In addition, the bank was bound as a “successor in interest” by the bankruptcy court judgment in that its interest was entirely dependent upon the ownership interest of the debtor-in-possession. We reject all of appellants’ arguments that ownership was not actually litigated in the bankruptcy ease.

AFFIRMED. '

BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 So. 2d 1155, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southeast-bank-na-v-equitec-leasing-investors-1978-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack