DENCHFIELD v. BANK (2020)

Affirmed. See § 45.032(2), Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing in pertinent part: “There is established a rebuttable legal presumption that the owner of record on the date of the filing of a lis pendens is the person entitled to surplus funds after payment of subordinate lienholders who have timely filed a claim”); All Ctys. Surplus LLC v. Flamingo S. Beach I Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 211 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that “distribution of surplus foreclosure proceeds is governed by a plain and unambiguous statutory procedure which clearly provides that the owner of record is entitled to the surplus proceeds”); Pineda v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So. 3d 1008, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)(holding: “Neither the statutes nor the case law governing distribution of surplus foreclosure sale proceeds provides a mechanism authorizing a third-party purchaser to obtain the surplus”). See also Quinones v. Southeastern Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding that “because Appellants were non-parties in the action and were not included in the final judgment, they are considered legal strangers to the action and, as such, have no standing to appeal that final judgment”); YHT & Assocs., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 177 So. 3d 641, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that appellant whose motion to intervene was denied and who failed to seek appellate review of that order was not a party to the underlying foreclosure proceeding and, therefore, had no standing to seek review of an order subsequently entered in that proceeding).

PER CURIAM.