BALCH v. WBL SPO LLC (2025)

AFFIRMED. See Intermediary Fin. Corp. v. McKay, 111 So. 531, 531 (Fla. 1927) (“This court is committed to the doctrine that a purchaser pendente lite is not entitled to intervene.”); Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345, 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[W]hen property is purchased during a pending foreclosure action in which a lis pendens has been filed, the purchaser generally is not entitled to intervene in the pending foreclosure action.”).

PER CURIAM.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and GANNAM, JJ., concur.