Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 7, 2024
Docket2023-1476
StatusPublished

This text of Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc. (Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc.) 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
Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1476 Lower Tribunal No. 17-7669 ________________

Viktoria Benkovitch, Appellant,

vs.

U.S. Bank National Association, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.

Viktoria Benkovitch, in proper person.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, and Dorrella L. Gallaway (Atlanta, GA), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Viktoria Benkovitch, appeals the trial court’s order, which

denied her (1) motion seeking to vacate and set aside the consent final

judgment of foreclosure; (2) objection to foreclosure sale; (3) motion to

vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale and certificate of sale; (4) motion

for involuntary dismissal of the foreclosure complaint for failure to join an

indispensable party; and (5) request for an evidentiary hearing.

Following our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we find no

abuse of discretion or error by the trial court and affirm. See S. Palm Beach

Inv. v. Ragatta Trading, Ltd., 789 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding

former owners of property not proper parties to foreclosure suit where they

had transferred their rights and interest in the property to a third party and

plaintiff was seeking only to foreclose the mortgage, not a deficiency

judgment); Mitchell v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 763 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 4th

DCA 358) (reiterating that mortgagor who has conveyed his interest in

property to another prior to foreclosure filing is “neither necessary nor proper

part[y] to a suit to foreclose unless a deficiency decree is sought.”) (citation

omitted). See also Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 306 So. 3d 1096,

1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[T]he law is well-established that an objection to

a foreclosure sale must be directed toward conduct that occurred at, or was

directly related to, the foreclosure sale.”)

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

Related

Mitchell v. Federal National Mortgage Association
763 So. 2d 358 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
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)
Viktoria Benkovitch v. U.S. Bank National Association, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viktoria-benkovitch-v-us-bank-national-association-etc-fladistctapp-2024.