United States District Court, M.D. Florida
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.).
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).
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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, non-parties 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.”).
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.