FRANCHAS HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT DAMERON, as Executor of Estate of RUSSELL F. YOUNG II, DECEASED, Defendant-Appellee.
CASE NO. CA2015-09-073
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY
3/7/2016
2016-Ohio-878
S. POWELL, J.
CIVIL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2014-CVH-1266
William G. Massa, 431 Ohio Pike, Suite 216 North, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255, for defendant-appellee
S. POWELL, J.
{1} Plaintiff-appellant, Franchas Holdings, LLC, appeals from the decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee, Robert Dameron, the executor of the estate of Russell F. Young, II. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{3} On August 30, 2012, Franchas Holdings filed a complaint in foreclosure with the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Flaglеr County, Florida (“Florida Circuit Court“), seeking to collect upon the unpaid assessments attributed to Young‘s eight condominium units. As permitted by
{4} On August 29, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court entered a default judgment against Young in the amount of $442,272.13, plus interest. Conditioned on Young‘s failure to pay off the total amount then duе and owing, the Florida Circuit Court then scheduled a public sale of Young‘s eight condominium units for October 4, 2013. Thereafter, when Young failed to pay off the money judgment rendered against him, Franchas Holdings foreclosed on the property and purchased all еight of Young‘s condominium units at the public sale for a total of $100. A certificate of title evidencing Franchas Holdings’ purchase was then filed with the Florida Circuit Court on October 31, 2013. Young subsequently passed away on February 7, 2014, thus prompting Dameron to be named exеcutor of his estate.
{5} On June 16, 2014, Franchas Holdings filed a certified copy of the Florida Circuit
{6} On March 15, 2015, Dameron filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court asserting that “a Florida court would not enforce this judgment; therefore, an Ohio court can not (sic) either.” In support of this claim, Dameron alleged Franchas Holdings was improperly attempting to collect on a “pre-foreclosure sale judgment rendered in Florida” and “not a deficiency judgment.” According to Dameron, a “Florida court would not enforce the Judgment presented by [Franchas Holdings] in the case at bar, but would require that a deficiency judgment be rendered, and then enforce that deficiency judgment.” In response, Franchas Holdings claimed its money judgment was fully enforceable as it was a “self-executing money judgment” that Young failed to defend against in the Flоrida Circuit Court prior to his death.
{7} On May 14, 2015, Franchas Holdings supplemented its response to Dameron‘s motion for summary judgment with documents from a similar lawsuit it had brought against Young‘s son, Jeffrey R. Young. In that case, just as in its case against Young, Franchas Holdings filed a complaint in foreclosure with the Florida Circuit Court seeking to recover upon unpaid assessments attributed to a single condominium unit located within the Yacht
{8} On August 10, 2015, the trial court issued its decision granting Dameron‘s motion for summary judgment finding “the judgment sought to be enforced in this State as it is now being sought would not be enforceable in Florida under the same circumstances.” In so holding, the trial court determined that because Franchas Holdings had foreclosed on the property and subsequently purchased Young‘s eight condominium units at a public sale, Florida law required Franchas Holdings to obtain a deficiency judgment to determine the amount of set-off from the public sale before it could collect on the money judgment.
{9} The trial court also determined that Franchas Holdings’ reliance on the Florida Circuit Court‘s decision in regards to the default judgment against Young‘s son, Jeffrey, was misplaced. As the trial court stated:
[Jeffrеy‘s] motion was for “Clarification of Amended Default Final Judgment or Alternatively for Relief from Amended Default Final Judgment.” It did not question the enforceability of the * * * judgment against [him]. The motion was denied based on the Florida court‘s finding that it was time-barred and further that the court wаs without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The Order does not establish that the judgment is fully enforceable in Florida. This Court cannot find that the order in [Jeffrey‘s] case raises a genuine issue of any triable fact in this case.
{10} Franchas Holdings now appeals from the trial court‘s decision, raising two
{11} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{12} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE THE JUDGMENT THE SAME EFFECT AS IT WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE RENDERING STATE.
{13} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{14} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF FLORIDA LAW.
{15} In its two assignments of error, Franchas Holdings argues the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Dameron, the exeсutor of Young‘s estate, arguing the trial court erred and misinterpreted Florida law by finding the Florida Circuit Court‘s default judgment was not yet enforceable, thereby preventing it from collecting the full amount on its money judgment from Young‘s estate. We disagree.
{16} Summary judgment is a procedural device used to terminate litigation when there are no issues in a case requiring a formal trial. Roberts v. RMB Ents., Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 435, 2011-Ohio-6223, ¶ 6 (12th Dist.). On appeal, a trial court‘s decision granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Moody v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., L.L.C., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-07-141, 2012-Ohio-1478, ¶ 7, citing Burgess v. Tackas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294, 296 (8th Dist.1998). In applying the de novo standard, the appellate court is required to “us[e] the same standard that the trial court should have used, and * * * examine the evidence to determine whether as a matter of law no genuine issues exist for trial.” Bravard v. Curran, 155 Ohio App.3d 713, 2004-Ohio-181, ¶ 9 (12th Dist.), quoting Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378, 383 (8th Dist.1997).
{17} Pursuant to
{18} Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of
{19} Pursuant to
{20} In this case, however, the record firmly establishes that Franchas Holdings never moved the Floridа Circuit Court for a deficiency judgment after it foreclosed on the property “in the manner a mortgage of real property is foreclosed” as provided by
It is axiomatic that a party can only recover once on the same debt. Thus, if Premier had pursued execution of the money judgment and recovered the entire judgment amount, then it could not pursue execution of the foreclоsure judgment. If Premier pursued foreclosure, and the sale amounts satisfied the judgment, then Premier could not pursue its judgment on the note. Complications arise, however, if the proceeds resulting from the initial collection method, execution on the notе or foreclosure, do not satisfy the entire debt. In that circumstance, a party is required to pursue another method of collection to obtain the entire amount of the judgment.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 662.
{21} Thus, to avoid the possibility of a double recovery, once Franchas Holdings foreclosed on Young‘s eight condominium units, our review of applicable Florida law indicates
{22} Nevertheless, Franchas Holdings argues it should be entitled to collect on the full amоunt of its money judgment from Young‘s estate since the Florida Circuit Court denied similar claims regarding Young‘s son, Jeffrey. However, after a thorough review of the record, we find the facts in that case distinguishable from the case at bar for not only did the Florida Circuit Court merеly deny Jeffrey‘s motion on procedural grounds by “finding that the time bars in 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, have run and further finding the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief,” there is also no indication in the record that Franchas Holdings was attempting to collect the full amount of its money judgment rendered against him after it foreclosed on the property and purchased his single condominium unit at the public sale. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances here, we find no merit to Franchas Holdings’ argument as it relates to the Florida Circuit Court‘s holding in Jeffrey‘s case.
{23} In light of the foregoing, we find no error in the trial court‘s decision finding Franchas Holdings was not entitled to recover the full amount of its money judgment rendered against Young from Young‘s estate after it foreclosed on the property and purchased Young‘s eight condominium units at the public sale without first obtaining a
{24} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.