Dyck-O'neal, Inc. v. Lytle

Full title: DYCK–O'NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. David A. LYTLE, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Date published: Oct 16, 2017

227 So. 3d 764 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1D17–1288

10-16-2017

DYCK–O'NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. David A. LYTLE, Appellee.

David M. Snyder, David M. Snyder Professional Association, Tampa, Susan B. Morrison of the Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa, and Joshua D. Moore of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant. Jonathan M. Smith, Duss, Kenney, Safer, Hampton & Joos, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

David M. Snyder, David M. Snyder Professional Association, Tampa, Susan B. Morrison of the Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa, and Joshua D. Moore of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

Jonathan M. Smith, Duss, Kenney, Safer, Hampton & Joos, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Higgins v. Dyck–O'Neal, Inc., 201 So.3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment); see also Dyck–O'Neal, Inc. v. Lanham, 214 So.3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (certifying conflict between this Court's decision in Higgins and decisions by the other four district courts of appeal).

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.