recognized that “a foreclosure proceeding resulting in a final decree and a sale of the mortgaged property, without the holder of the legal title being before the court will have no effect to transfer his title to the purchaser at said sale.” Jordan v. Sayre, 24 Fla. 1, 3 So. 329, 330 (1888). If the foreclosure proceeding has no effect to transfer title because the legal title holder has not been joined, it is simply another way of saying that the foreclosure proceeding is void. Id. (emphasis added). This court explained that the borrower’s res judicata argument would have merit if the first foreclosure sale were not void. Id. Similarly, Citibank’s foreclosure judgment was void for failing to join indispensable parties. See also Lambert v. Dracos, 403 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (<HOLDING>). If the trial court denied the motion to
holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient holding that district court erred in denying leave to amend complaint to add new legal theories even though trial was approaching holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion to dismiss foreclosure complaint for failure to join an indispensable party a legal coowner of the interest foreclosed holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that trial court erred in denying motion for judgment of acquittal when state failed to prove venue