Madura et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al
Filing
707
ORDER: Lucas Lapinski Tenant's Declaration Requesting this Court to Direct Bank of America NA to Serve Pleadings Upon him (Doc. # 703 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/29/2017. (KAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
ANDRZEJ MADURA and ANNA DOLINSKAMADURA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:11-cv-2511-T-33TBM
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et
al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Lucas
Lapinski Tenant’s Declaration Requesting this Court to Direct
Bank of America NA to Serve Pleadings Upon him (Doc. # 703),
which was filed on March 16, 2017.
Bank of America responded
to the Motion on March 17, 2017. (Doc. # 704).
The Court
denies the Motion as explained below.
I.
Background
On July 17, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting
Bank of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as
addressing a plethora of other motions. (Doc. # 496). Among
other things, the Court determined that Bank of America was
entitled to summary judgment against the Maduras as to its
foreclosure counterclaim. (Id.).
Prior to the entry of a final judgment, the Maduras filed
a motion to stay the case based on their submission of a
petition for writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit based on
the argument that this Court should have entered an Order of
recusal. (Doc. # 504). On August 12, 2013, the Court denied
the motion to stay. (Doc. # 520).
Thereafter, on August 13,
2013, this Court entered its Final Judgment of Foreclosure.
(Doc. # 521).
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s
Summary Judgment Order on November 10, 2014, in a lengthy and
detailed Opinion. (Doc. # 567)(Case 13-13953).
The United
States Supreme Court denied the Maduras’ petition for writ of
certiorari on October 9, 2015. (Doc. # 627).
Bank of America reports that the Maduras never paid the
total amount due and owing under the Final Judgment and the
United States Marshal held a public sale of the Property on
February 11, 2016, at 2:00PM at the Manatee County Courthouse.
(Doc. # 636 at 3). Bank of America was the successful bidder.
The United States Marshal filed a Report of Sale on February
16, 2016. (Doc. # 633).
Thereafter, Bank of America filed a
Motion seeking an Order confirming the foreclosure sale. (Doc.
# 636).
The Maduras, on the other hand, filed a Motion
seeking an Order vacating the sale. (Doc. # 6 37).
On April
6, 2016, the Court granted Bank of America’s Motion to Confirm
the Foreclosure Sale and denied the Maduras’ Motion to Vacate
Foreclosure Sale. (Doc. # 639).
-2-
In response, the Maduras filed an appeal, and sought
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. By Order of the
Eleventh Circuit, the Maduras’ appeal was determined to be
frivolous and their motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis denied. (Doc. # 688). The Eleventh Circuit explained
that the Maduras never paid the amount owing on the mortgage,
the sale was conducted in the county where the property is
located, the Bank complied with the terms provided by the
Court’s Order of foreclosure, and the notice of the sale
satisfied relevant federal and state notice requirements.
(Id.).
The Bank, as the owner of the property, filed a Motion
for Writ of Possession.
The Maduras opposed the issuance of
the Writ of Possession by arguing that their nephew, Lucas
Lapinski, signed a lease to inhabit the property for a two
year term at the rate of $639 a month. After protracted
proceedings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Writ of Possession
on January 26, 2017. (Doc. # 689). The Magistrate Judge
considered affidavits provided by the parties and determined
that the lease was not valid because it was not approved by
the Condominium Association. (Id. at 9). The Magistrate Judge
also held that “Mr. Lapinski is not paying fair market rate
for this Condominium” and found “the lease was granted Mr.
Lapinski on favorable terms below market value as a blocking
-3-
move to prevent [the Bank] from gaining possession.” (Id. at
10).
The Maduras have filed a Motion for Reconsideration
regarding the issuance of the writ of possession (Doc. # 692),
which will be addressed via separate order by the Magistrate
Judge.
By the present Motion, Lapinski seeks an Order requiring
Bank of America to serve him with all future pleadings in this
case. The Court denies the Motion.
II.
Discussion
Here, Lapinski, the Maduras’ supposed tenant, claims that
he should be added to the service list in these already
protracted proceedings.
As an initial matter, the fact that
Lapinski is not a party to the case weighs heavily against
requiring
Bank
of
America
to
serve
him
with
pleadings.
Lapinski lacks standing to challenge the Court’s prior rulings
or to make any other filings in this case because he has
neither requested, nor been authorized by the Court, to
intervene.
See Lindsey v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 542
Fed. Appx. 747, 749 (11th Cir. 2013)(absent intervention, nonparties lacked standing to challenge district court orders);
EEOC v. E. Airlines, Inc., 736 F.2d 635, 637 (11th Cir.
1984)(non-party lacked standing to challenge consent decree or
“make any other motion.”).
-4-
In addition, Lapinski has not articulated a valid basis
for intervention in the case. Lapinski has not made a legally
sufficient motion, and to the extent his filings could be
construed as sufficient, they are untimely. See United States
v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983).
Furthermore, Lapinski’s interests were adequately represented
by the Maduras earlier in the litigation. See Davis v. Butts,
290 F.3d 1297, 1300 (11th Cir. 2002).
Bank of America is not
required to serve Lapinski with filings in this case.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Lucas Lapinski Tenant’s Declaration Requesting this Court
to Direct Bank of America NA to Serve Pleadings Upon him (Doc.
# 703) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 29th
day of March, 2017.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?