DUDLAR v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Francis P. DUDLAR, et al., Appellants, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D20-332

Decided: April 06, 2022

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOBREE, JJ.

Wesoloski Carlson, P.A., and Erik D. Wesoloski, for appellants. McCalla Raymer Liebert Pierce, LLC, and Charles P. Gufford (Orlando), for appellee.

Affirmed. See § 45.031(1)(a), (7), Fla. Stat. (2014); § 45.032(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“ ‘Subordinate lienholder’ means the holder of a subordinate lien shown on the face of the pleadings as an encumbrance on the property. ․ A subordinate lienholder includes, but is not limited to, a subordinate mortgage ․”); Household Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 883 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Bank of America was named as a defendant in the mortgage foreclosure as a junior mortgagee. It was entitled to assert its claim to the surplus proceeds.”); see also JP Morgan Chase Bank v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 929 So. 2d 651, 653-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stating rule that “foreclosure of the first [lien] did not extinguish the second; it merely transferred the lien from the property to the surplus funds that took its place” and that “a surplus is payable to junior lienholders in accordance with their priority”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network