Court Opinion

ID: 9963078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:03:27.721121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.897750
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 24, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-971
                       Lower Tribunal No. 12-43376
                          ________________

                              Craig Snyder,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de
Jesus Santovenia, Judge.

     P.A. Bravo, P.A., and Paul Alexander Bravo, for appellant.

     Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP and Rebecca A. Rodriguez
and Terrance W. Anderson, Jr., and Sophie M. Labarge, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.230 (“Anyone claiming an interest in
pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by

intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in

recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise

ordered by the court in its discretion.”); Rubin v. Kapell, 105 So. 2d 28, 31

(Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (stating that “when mortgagors have conveyed all their

rights and interest in the mortgaged property to other parties such

mortgagors are neither necessary nor proper parties to a suit to foreclose

unless a deficiency decree is sought.” (citing Dennis v. Ivey, 183 So. 624,

185 (Fla. 1938))); Troncoso v. Larrain, 307 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 3d DCA

2020) (determining that trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying

motion to intervene because it “carefully considered all relevant factors to

determine whether, it should, in its discretion, allow intervention, and,

ultimately, denied relief” (citing Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.

2d 505, 508 (Fla. 1992))).

                                       2