McMahon v. Deutsche Bank — Third District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling

Case
Michael J. McMahon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-9, Truman Annex Master Property Owners’ Association, Inc., United States of America, City of Key West, Florida, Monroe County Tax Collector, Unknown Tenants/Owners 1, Unknown Tenants/Owners 2, and Unknown Tenants/Owners 3
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
LINDSEY; GORDO; GOODEN
Date Decided
October 15, 2026
Docket No.
3D26-0039
Topics
Civil Appeal, Summary Affirmance, Appellate Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Michael J. McMahon appealed a ruling of the Circuit Court for Monroe County in lower-tribunal case number 20-CA-218-K. Circuit Judge Mark Wilson entered the ruling under review.

McMahon represented himself on appeal. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for the identified Harborview mortgage-loan trust, appeared through counsel. The appellate opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the circuit court’s ruling, or the arguments raised on appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The court issued its decision per curiam through a panel consisting of Judges LINDSEY, GORDO, and GOODEN.

The court provided no factual analysis or extended explanation. Its affirmance cited Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Diz, 253 So. 3d 705, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), and Ortiz v. PNC Bank, National Association, 188 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Key Takeaways

  • The Third District affirmed the Monroe County circuit court’s ruling.
  • The per curiam opinion does not disclose the underlying facts, issues presented, or reasoning beyond citations to two Florida appellate decisions.
  • The opinion was not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

Why It Matters

The decision leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place. Because the opinion contains no factual discussion or substantive analysis, its significance must be assessed from the affirmance and the two authorities the court cited rather than from any newly articulated rule.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top