Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087

Wells Fargo filed a mortgage foreclosure against Basheer and Rooshnee Ally and recorded a lis pendens in December 2012.
Wells Fargo obtained summary judgment and a final judgment of foreclosure in March 2014; a sale was scheduled and later rescheduled.
Whitburn, LLC purchased the property (certificate of title recorded July 2013) after Wells Fargo filed its lis pendens.
Whitburn filed emergency motions to cancel the Wells Fargo foreclosure sale, claiming (1) it is the record title owner and (2) Wells Fargo failed to provide an estoppel letter under section 701.04 and defective sale notice under section 702.035.
Trial court initially granted a cancelation, later denied Whitburn’s motion, concluding Whitburn lacked standing to challenge the foreclosure sale.
The Second District affirmed, holding Whitburn purchased subject to Wells Fargo’s pending foreclosure and lis pendens and thus could not intervene or object to the sale; redemption rights under section 45.0315 remained available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Whitburn)	Defendant's Argument (Wells Fargo)	Held
Standing to challenge foreclosure sale	Whitburn is current record title owner and therefore may object to the sale	Whitburn bought after lis pendens; not a party and lacks a legally cognizable interest to intervene	Whitburn lacks standing to object or intervene because it purchased subject to the pending foreclosure/lis pendens
Effect of lis pendens on subsequent purchaser	Not addressed substantively by Whitburn; contends statutory noncompliance deprived rights	Lis pendens provided constructive notice; subsequent purchaser takes subject to litigation and superior mortgage	Lis pendens put Whitburn on notice; purchaser takes property subject to foreclosure outcome
Right to redeem and estoppel letter requirement	Failure to provide estoppel letter under §701.04 deprived Whitburn of redemption and due process	Redemption governed by §45.0315; purchaser may protect interest by statutory redemption rather than intervening	Claim that lack of estoppel letter thwarted redemption is without merit; statutory redemption remedy controls
Intervention after final judgment/sale by third-party purchaser	Whitburn sought to cancel sale based on ownership and statutory violations	Wells Fargo argued intervention improper because purchase occurred after lis pendens and judgment	Purchaser who acquires property after lis pendens generally cannot intervene even after final judgment; appeal affirmed

Whiteside v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia Cty., 798 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (nonparties generally have no standing to request relief in a case)
Warshaw–Seattle, Inc. v. Clark, 85 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1955) (persons not parties of record lack standing to control proceedings)
Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (purchaser after lis pendens generally cannot intervene in pending foreclosure)
Market Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (affirming that purchaser who acquired property after foreclosure complaint and lis pendens could not intervene)
U.S. Nat’l Ass’n v. Bevans, 138 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (exceptions to rule where purchaser lacked notice; senior interests survive junior foreclosure)
De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, P.A., 170 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (post-sale purchaser after lis pendens cannot intervene; statutory redemption available)
Adhin v. First Horizon Home Loans, 44 So. 3d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (discussing lis pendens purpose and notice implications)
Andresix Corp. v. Peoples Downtown Nat’l Bank, 419 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (purchaser during pendency of foreclosure and lis pendens not entitled to intervene)
Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976) (post-judgment orders that are dispositive of an issue are final and appealable)
Regions Bank v. DeLuca, 97 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (recording statute gives constructive notice of prior encumbrances)