PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L. P. v. M D T R, AS TRUSTEE
257 So. 3d 1114
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Provident Funding (mortgagee) filed two foreclosure actions against Betty Groves on the same promissory note and mortgage; first filed in 2010, second filed in 2015.
- In the 2010 action Provident failed to respond to requests for admission and was deemed to have admitted it lacked ownership/standing; the trial court entered final judgment for Groves in 2012.
- Provident filed a second foreclosure in 2015 naming Groves and MDTR (trustee under the Alta Vista Land Trust); MDTR answered and pleaded res judicata among other defenses.
- At a nonjury trial MDTR did not present evidence of its interest in the property; Provident introduced the note (with a blank endorsement), mortgage, default notice, and payment log showing default as of May 1, 2010.
- The trial court granted MDTR’s motion for involuntary dismissal on res judicata grounds; Provident appealed.
- The district court reversed, finding MDTR failed to prove identity/privity and Singleton v. Greymar precluded res judicata as to a subsequent, distinct default period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second foreclosure | Provident: second suit alleges separate defaults after the first action, so not barred | MDTR: prior final judgment in first foreclosure bars relitigation (res judicata) | Reversed — res judicata does not bar the second action |
| Whether MDTR proved identity/privity with Groves for preclusion | Provident: no evidence MDTR was party or in privity; burden on MDTR | MDTR: argues it is in privity (suggested acquisition of interest) | Reversed — MDTR failed to prove privity/identity of parties |
| Whether overlapping default allegations (May 1, 2010 vs Oct 1, 2008) preclude successive foreclosure | Provident: alleged defaults include payments after first suit dismissal, creating distinct cause of action | MDTR: overlapping dates mean same cause of action and thus precluded | Reversed — under Singleton a subsequent default period is separate and allows a new foreclosure |
| Whether Bartram or other authority requires a different result | Provident: Bartram supports successive suits for subsequent defaults if timely | MDTR: trial court thought Bartram required dismissal | Reversed — Bartram does not bar a successive suit based on later defaults |
Key Cases Cited
- Singleton v. Greymar Associates, Inc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004) (successive foreclosure based on subsequent, distinct defaults is not necessarily barred by res judicata)
- Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (elements and application of res judicata)
- Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association, 211 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 2016) (statute-of-limitations on successive foreclosure claims runs from each new default; relies on Singleton)
- Forero v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 223 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (applying Singleton: later-missed payments after earlier suits can form basis for a new foreclosure action)