PENTON V. INTERCREDIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006 ** PEDRO PENTON, et al., ** Appellants, ** CASE NO. 3D05-2929 v. ** INTERCREDIT BANK, N.A., ** Appellee. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-19980 ** Opinion filed November 15, 2006. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Leon M. Firtel, Judge. Blaxberg, Grayson, Kukoff & Segal, and David A. Strauss, for appellants. Perez, appellee. Goran, Rodriguez, and William G. Essig, for Before RAMIREZ, and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. RAMIREZ, J. This is an appeal from two orders in connection with an action brought by Intercredit Bank, N.A., seeking to foreclose upon several Penton. mortgages granted by Pedro Penton and Yaknel We affirm on the issues raised because the trial court correctly allowed Intercredit to amend its complaint, it did not err in finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction, and venue was proper in Miami-Dade County. Appellant Carlos Penton was not originally named in the action, which only identified defendants Pedro Penton, Yaknel Penton, John Doe and All Others in Possession. Carlos Penton was personally served with a John Doe Summons on October 6, 2005. At that time, his name did not appear in the caption of the Complaint or the Summons. After a default was entered against Carlos Penton, the circuit court entered an Agreed Order on December 15, 2005, setting aside the default as against Carlos Penton. court contemporaneously application Doe. which to substitute granted appellant Intercredit s Carlos Penton The trial ore tenus for John The court also denied the appellant s motion to dismiss, had asserted that the Eleventh Circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award a judgment of foreclosure as to real property located entirely within the borders of Hendry County, thus ruling that venue was proper and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a judgment of foreclosure against the property located in Hendry County. 2 The first order under appeal simply allowed the substitution of Carlos Penton as a party-defendant for John Doe. Despite appellant s argument to the contrary, the order does not determine whether Carlos Penton was properly served with process addressed 1.250(c) to when he John provides was personally Doe. for Florida the addition served Rule of of with Civil parties by a summons Procedure order of court... on motion of any party at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. We can find no error in the court allowing the substitution. The appellant also complains that the trial court erred in finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the Hendry County property. rem jurisdiction territorial Normally, a circuit court cannot exercise in over property boundaries. situated Section beyond 47.011, the circuit s Florida Statutes, provides that actions shall be brought only in the county where the property in litigation is located. Goedmakers, 520 So. 2d 575 (Fla. See also Goedmakers v. 1988). This is commonly referred to as the local action rule. The Legislature, however, has created an exception to the local action rule, codified at section 702.04, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part: When a mortgage includes lands . . . . lying in two or more counties, it may be foreclosed in any one of said counties, and all proceedings shall be had in that 3 county as if all therein . . . . Appellant intended the nevertheless to provide mortgaged argues a that remedy land the where a . . . exception mortgage . lay was only covers a contiguous parcel of land that extends into multiple counties. We conclude that this argument can find no support in the language of the statute, the legislative history or the case law. On the contrary, a 1959 opinion of the Attorney General interpreted the statute as relating to both contiguous and noncontiguous real properties. (1959). See Op. Att y. Gen. Fla. 59-57 We agree with this interpretation. We therefore affirm the trial court in all respects. 4
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.
