Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 27, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D21-318 and 3D21-881
Lower Tribunal No. 19-16332
________________
Arthur J. Morburger,
Appellant,
vs.
Yellow Funding Corp., et al.,
Appellees.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M.
Rodriguez, Judge.
Arthur J. Morburger, in proper person.
Michel O. Weisz, P.A., and Michel O. Weisz, for appellees.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
EMAS, J.
In this consolidated appeal, we review the final judgment of foreclosure
against Arthur J. Morburger in favor of Yellow Funding Corp. (“Yellow
Funding”) and a postjudgment order overruling Morburger’s objections to the
foreclosure sale and directing the clerk of court to issue a certificate of title.
We find no merit in the claims raised by Morburger and affirm both orders.
As to the final judgment, Morburger contends that the operative
complaint should have been dismissed because Yellow Funding was
administratively dissolved and was therefore not authorized to pursue the
foreclosure action against him under section 607.1405, Fla. Stat. (2019). We
reject this argument and reaffirm our alignment with the holding of our sister
court in Hock v. Triad Guaranty Ins. Corp.,
292 So. 3d 37, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA
2020), that the right to wind up under section 607.1405 “applies equally to
corporations that are voluntarily dissolved and to corporations that are
administratively dissolved.” See New Life Rehab Med. Ctr. v. Mercury Ins.
Co. of Fla., No. 3D21-112,
2021 WL 3745213 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 25, 2021)
(concluding “we align ourselves with this body of decisional authority and
hold that section 607.1622, Florida Statutes, ‘does not preclude a
corporation that has been administratively dissolved for failing to file an
annual report from prosecuting or defending against an action in order to
wind up its business affairs’ ”) (quoting Hock, 292 So. 3d at 41).
2
We also affirm the trial court’s postjudgment order overruling
Morburger’s objections to the foreclosure sale and directing the clerk to issue
the certificate of title. See § 45.031, Fla. Stat. (2020); Phoenix Holding, LLC
v. Martinez,
27 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reiterating: “Whether the
complaining party has made the showing necessary to set aside a
foreclosure sale is a discretionary decision by the trial court, which may be
reversed only when the court has grossly abused its discretion”); U-M Pub.,
Inc. v. Home News Pub. Co.,
279 So. 2d 379, 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Can
Financial, LLC v. Niklewicz,
307 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). See also
Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
306 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA
2020) (affirming order denying motion to vacate foreclosure sale and
overruling objection to sale where bid price was $100 but defendant failed to
meet burden of establishing mistake, fraud, or irregularity in the conduct of
the sale).
Affirmed.
3
