
    DYCK-O’NEAL, INC., Appellant, v. Danell A. HUTHSING, et al., Appellees.
    CASE NO. 1D16-4352
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Opinion filed October 16, 2017
    David M. Snyder, David'M. Snyder Professional Association, Tampa; Susan B. Morrison of the Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa; Daniel C. Con-suegra, Chad W. Howard, and Joshua D. Moore of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa; and Scott Zimmer of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Riverview, for Appellant.
    
      Austin Tyler Brown, Parker & Du-Fresne, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
   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.  