YHT & Associates, Inc. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
177 So. 3d 641
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Aurora Loan Services filed foreclosure on Aug 4, 2010 against Nancy L. Elia; a lis pendens was recorded. Nationstar later substituted as plaintiff.
- Elia transferred title during the pendency of the foreclosure; title ended up (via quitclaim) with YHT as trustee of a land trust.
- In June 2013 YHT moved to be substituted as real party in interest or to intervene; the trial court denied the motion in September 2014.
- The denial of intervention was not appealed by YHT. The trial court’s denial nevertheless directed future service on YHT.
- At the foreclosure trial YHT sought to participate but was excluded; the court entered a uniform final judgment of foreclosure that mistakenly listed YHT in the caption.
- YHT alone appealed the foreclosure judgment; the Second District dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because YHT was a nonparty in the trial court and failed to appeal the denial of intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether YHT, as a post-complaint title owner who was denied intervention, has standing to appeal the final foreclosure judgment | YHT argued it should be able to appeal the foreclosure judgment because it obtained title during the proceeding and was listed in the judgment caption | Nationstar argued YHT never became a party (intervention denied), did not appeal that denial, and therefore lacks standing to appeal the final judgment | Court held YHT lacks standing; a nonparty who failed to appeal denial of intervention cannot appeal the final judgment even if named in the caption |
| Whether being listed in the judgment caption or receiving service alters party status | YHT relied on the caption and service directions to assert party status | Nationstar said caption/service do not create party status; party status is established by the record and procedural steps | Court held captioning or service does not confer party status; proper parties are determined by law and record |
| Whether prior decisions furnish an exception allowing nonparty owners to appeal the merits | YHT cited cases where post-transfer owners appealed | Nationstar distinguished those cases on their facts (e.g., active participation, lower-court acquiescence) | Court rejected YHT’s reliance, finding no analogous “unique circumstances” here permitting appeal by a nonparty |
| Whether YHT could at least challenge denial of intervention after the foreclosure judgment | YHT argued it should be able to raise intervention denial in the appeal | Nationstar noted YHT failed to timely appeal the intervention denial when it was a final order | Court noted YHT had an appealable final order denying intervention but failed to appeal it; thus it cannot now challenge the final judgment on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoption Miracles, LLC v. S.C.W., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (order denying intervention is a final appealable order)
- Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (nonparty is a "stranger to the record" and cannot confer appellate jurisdiction)
- Forcum v. Symmes, 133 So. 88 (Fla. 1931) (nonparty cannot transfer jurisdiction to appellate court)
- Watson v. Claughton, 34 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1948) (failure to seek appellate review of denial of intervention constitutes acquiescence and precludes later challenge)
- Portfolio Investments Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 81 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (exception where nonparty actively participated in lower court with acquiescence, creating standing)
- Orange Park Trust Services, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 152 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (post-transfer owner appealed, but record showed party status in lower court)