Craig Snyder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

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 *2 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))).