Global Heir And Asset Locators, Inc. v. First NLC Financial Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2006
GLOBAL HEIR AND ASSET LOCATORS, INC., and TERRENCE E.
ROSENBERG,
Appellants,
v.
FIRST NLC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Appellee.
Nos. 4D05-392 & 4D05-1764
[September 13, 2006]
KLEIN, J.
We withdraw our previous opinion filed on May 31, 2006 and replace
it with this opinion.
Appellant Global is in the business of contacting former property
owners who may be entitled to funds in the registry of the court in
mortgage foreclosure cases. Global regularly recommended appellant
Rosenberg as a lawyer to clients to pursue these funds. In this case the
trial court ruled that Rosenberg’s clients were not entitled to the funds,
and assessed fees against Rosenberg and Global under section 57.105,
Florida Statutes (2004). The court also fined Rosenberg $5,000 because
Rosenberg acted in bad faith and “his professional behavior was
egregious.” We reverse.
Appellee First NLC held a second mortgage on the property which was
foreclosed in this case, and after defaults were entered against the owner
and First NLC in the foreclosure action, the property was sold. The sale
produced excess funds which were deposited in the registry of the court.
Global then contacted the former property owners and advised them that
it was possible that they could recover the excess.
On the
recommendation of Global, the owners hired Rosenberg to pursue their
claim. The owners then filed a motion, which was served on First NLC
and all other claimants, to have the funds distributed to them, and First
NLC responded that it was entitled to the funds.
The legal position of the former owners was that they were entitled to
the funds because First NLC had been defaulted in the original
foreclosure proceeding, and that as a result of the default, First NLC no
longer had a claim to the proceeds. The trial court ruled in favor of First
NLC and then, on its own, issued an order to show cause against the
former owners, Global, and Rosenberg, as to why fees under section
57.105, Florida Statutes should not be assessed.
After receiving
responses to the order to show cause, the court awarded fees to First
NLC, explaining:
5. The established law clearly does not permit payment to
[the former property owners], or to their enrichment, at the
expense of First NLC. Yet, in this proceeding, attorney
Rosenberg filed a motion (and sent correspondence directly
to the court) in which his actions were directly contrary to
existing law and wholly inconsistent with material facts.
Even after he knew, or should have known, of the applicable
facts, he continued to claim [the former property owners]
were entitled to receive all of the surplus proceeds.
6. Florida law, however, is well established. [The former
property owners] do not, as a matter of law or fact, have a
superior claim to the excess proceeds.
In addition, the court ordered Rosenberg to pay a fine of $5,000 as a
sanction for pursuing the claim.
At the time the former owners filed their motion to claim the excess
proceeds, in April, 2004, the issue of whether a junior mortgagee who
was defaulted in a foreclosure could later claim surplus funds had not
yet been decided in this district. The trial court granted First NLC’s
motion for distribution of surplus proceeds on May 21, 2004, and issued
its order to show cause why section 57.105 fees should not be assessed
on July 9, 2004. After that, on September 22, 2004, this court issued an
opinion in Household Finance Services, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., 883
So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), holding that the default against the
junior mortgagee does not preclude that mortgagee from claiming excess
proceeds. In reversing, we relied on Schroth v. Cape Coral Bank, 377 So.
2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Hamilton v. Hughes, 737 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.
5th DCA 1999).
Because the issue had not yet been decided in this district when this
claim was pursued, we do not agree with the trial court that Florida law
2
was so well established as to warrant fees under section 57.105. It
follows from that conclusion, of course, that the additional fine assessed
against Rosenberg based on the same behavior must also be vacated.
We find no merit in the remaining issues. Reversed.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert A. Rosenberg, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 04-930 CACE25.
Stanley Jay Bartel of the Law Offices of Stanley Jay Bartel, The
Villages, for appellant Global Heir and Asset Locators.
Peter S. Heller of the Law Offices of Peter S. Heller, P.A., Miami, for
appellant Terrence E. Rosenberg.
Cary A. Lubetsky and Joseph J. Huss of Krinzman, Huss & Lubetsky,
Miami, for appellee.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
