Vera De Sousa, as Trustee for Vag Land Trust 1 v. JP Morgan Chase
170 So. 3d 928
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Chase filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and recorded a lis pendens on the Morobitto property in Jan/Feb 2013, asserting a superior lien.
- Los Mangos, holding an inferior assessment lien, had a separate foreclosure action; that claim was resolved in Los Mangos’ favor in Feb 2013.
- Appellant Vera De Sousa (trustee) purchased Los Mangos’ interest at the Los Mangos foreclosure sale on April 4, 2013, while Chase’s lis pendens remained recorded.
- The trial court later entered final judgment in Chase’s foreclosure action, declaring Chase’s lien superior to all defendants’ interests.
- Twenty-nine days after entry of final judgment, Appellant moved to intervene in Chase’s foreclosure; the trial court denied the motion.
- Appellant appealed, arguing she should be permitted to intervene despite purchasing after Chase’s lis pendens and after final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a purchaser pendente lite may intervene in an existing foreclosure after acquiring an inferior interest with notice of a recorded lis pendens | Appellant argued she acquired an interest that justifies intervention to protect her rights | Chase argued purchaser with notice of lis pendens is bound by pending foreclosure and cannot intervene | Court held purchaser pendente lite who bought subject to a recorded lis pendens may not intervene; denial affirmed |
| Whether post-judgment intervention is allowed under the narrow "interests of justice" exception | Appellant argued the interests of justice permit post-judgment intervention | Chase argued post-judgment intervention is generally barred and the Wags exception is narrow and inapplicable | Court held intervention after final judgment is barred absent narrow Wags-type circumstances; exception not met here |
| Whether failure to give direct notice to the purchaser violated due process | Appellant claimed she lacked due process because Chase did not notify her of the foreclosure | Chase argued the recorded lis pendens provided constructive notice and purchaser had duty to check public records | Court held no due process violation; lis pendens constitutes constructive notice to subsequent purchasers |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230 | Appellant asked the court to exercise discretion to allow intervention | Chase maintained intervention is permissive but inappropriate given appellant’s inferior status and timing | Court found no abuse of discretion in denying intervention; precedent supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992) (intervention under rule is discretionary)
- Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat’l Bank, 419 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (purchaser of property subject to pending mortgage foreclosure and lis pendens may not intervene)
- Wags Transp. Sys., Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1956) (narrow post-judgment intervention allowed in extraordinary facts; zoning context)
- Sedra Family Ltd. P’ship v. 4750, LLC, 124 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (general rule bars intervention after final judgment)
- Hausmann ex rel. Doe v. L.M., 806 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (rule 1.230 intervention is permissive)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bevans, 138 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (lis pendens serves as constructive notice to subsequent purchasers)
- Greenwald v. Graham, 130 So. 608 (Fla. 1930) (purchaser pendente lite is bound by prior judgment)