Case ID: so2d_446/html/1155-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOUTHEAST BANK, N.A., a national banking association, as Co-Personal Representative of the estate of Charles M. McArthur, deceased, as Co-Trustee under the Will of Charles M. McArthur, deceased, and as Agent; and Nadene O. Huff, as custodian for LaNae McArthur under the Florida Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, and as Co-Personal Representative of the estate of Charles M. McArthur, deceased, Appellants, v. EQUITEC LEASING INVESTORS 1978, Appellee.
    No. 83-856.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 14, 1984.
    Timothy J. Norris and Dennis M. Campbell of Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwo-dy & Cole, Miami, for appellants.
    Freeman, Rishwain & Hall, Stockton, Cal.; and James H. Post and E. Lanny Russell, Jacksonville, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Southeast Bank appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Equitec Leasing Investors in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The summary judgment was granted on grounds that the ownership of the property being foreclosed had been determined in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.

We have thoroughly reviewed the matter and hold Southeast Bank collaterally es-topped from relitigating the ownership in the state court herein. Freehling v. MGIC Financial Corporation, 437 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), holds this doctrine applicable under the circumstances of this case. The major contested issue on appeal has been whether the debtor-in-possession and the bank were parties in privity in the bankruptcy proceeding. See In Re Wesco Products Co., 22 B.R. 107 (N.D.Ill.1982), and Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 366 F.Supp. 901 (N.D.Fla.1978), aff'd. 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975). In addition, the bank was bound as a “successor in interest” by the bankruptcy court judgment in that its interest was entirely dependent upon the ownership interest of the debtor-in-possession. We reject all of appellants’ arguments that ownership was not actually litigated in the bankruptcy ease.

AFFIRMED. '

BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents without opinion.