Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kipps Colony II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 July 2016
• Docket Number: 2D14–4436.,Nos. 2D14–858,s. 2D14–858
• Parties: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, v. KIPPS COLONY II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit; CHARLES C. Knighton; and Megan A. Knighton, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

201 So.3d 670

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant,

v.KIPPS COLONY II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit; CHARLES C. Knighton; and Megan A. Knighton, Appellees.

Nos. 2D14–858

2D14–4436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 15, 2016.

Adam M. Topel, J. Randolph Liebler, and Tricia J. Duthiers of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellant.

Shawn G. Brown of Redding & Brown, PLLC, Tampa; and Lang & Raffa P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee Kipps Colony II Condominium Association, Inc.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

CONSOLIDATED

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

On its own motion, this court's opinion dated December 9, 2015, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. A footnote has been added, and changes have been made to section II.B. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained in this appeal.

BLACK

, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, Bank of America, N.A., challenges the trial court's rulings on two motions for relief from judgment. Bank of America raises multiple claims of error in the appeal from the denial of its Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)

motion. Because we find merit in one of those arguments, requiring reversal of the order denying relief from judgment, we do not address the remaining claims. As to Bank of America's appeal from the denial of the rule 1.540(a) motion, we affirm without comment.

I. Background

Kipps Colony II Condominium Association filed a lien foreclosure action against Charles and Megan Knighton for failure to pay their condominium assessments. The Association's complaint named Bank of America as a defendant. The complaint alleged that Megan Knighton “may claim an interest in the Unit by virtue of that certain Mortgage on the Unit, recorded in O.R. Book 13524, Page 595, and that certain Mortgage on the Unit, recorded in O.R. Book 14385, Page 1957.” The complaint also alleged that Bank of America “may claim an interest in the Unit by virtue of its mortgage recorded in O.R. Book 14385, Page 1957, which interest, if any, is inferior and subordinate to” the Association's lien. The complaint did not otherwise identify the mortgages on the condominium or expressly state that Bank of America held both the first and second mortgages on the property, only the second of which was inferior to the Association's lien. It did, however, allege that the Association was not required to give Charles Knighton notice of its intention to foreclose the lien because an action to foreclose a mortgage on the condominium was pending before the trial court. The Association requested that “the Defendants and all other persons who have any lien junior to the lien of [the Association] be barred and forever foreclosed of all right, title, interest, equity or redemption or lien in or to or against the [condominium unit].”

A default was entered against Bank of America. The Association then moved for summary judgment, and a final summary judgment of foreclosure was rendered December 19, 2011. Paragraph five of the uniform final judgment states:

The lien of [the Association] is superior in dignity to any right, title, interest or claim of the defendants through or under the defendants and all persons, corporations, or other entities claiming by, through or under the defendants or any of them and the property will be sold free and clear of all claims of the defendant with the exception of any assessments that are superior pursuant to sections 718.116

or 20.3085, Florida Statutes.

(Emphasis added.)

The property was sold on January 28, 2013, more than a year after entry of the final judgment. The parties have not provided an explanation for the delay from March 2012 to January 2013. Inland Assets, LLC, purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.¹ A certificate of title was issued in February 2013, and Inland Assets immediately filed a quiet title action against Bank of America and the Knightons. Bank of America again failed to appear,² and Inland Assets obtained a quiet title judgment on March 18, 2013. That judgment provides, in pertinent part:

[Inland Assets] is the rightful and lawful owner of the Property, free and clear of any liens or encumbrances by [Bank of America] (or any persons claiming by, through, or under [Bank of America] ) and to the exclusion of any claims, liens, or mortgages of [Bank of America], including but not limited to the mortgages recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County, Florida at OR Book 13524, Page 595.

(Emphasis added.)

Notably, although the complaint to quiet title does not specify the mortgages that may be at issue or give the O.R. Book and page number of any mortgage, the judgment specifically includes the O.R. book and page number of the first mortgage held by Bank of America. The appendices provided to this court do not include a copy of the motion for final judgment in the quiet title action. Thus, it appears that Inland Assets knew it had received a windfall via the language of the final judgment of foreclosure.

On the same date that the court issued the quiet title judgment, Bank of America filed a motion to quash service of process and vacate the clerk's default. Later, Bank of America filed a rule 1.540(b)

motion to set aside the quiet title judgment alleging that the quiet title judgment was void for lack of service. Both motions were denied without prejudice.

On August 21, 2013, Bank of America filed a motion to quash service of process and to vacate default and set aside the summary final judgment of foreclosure in the foreclosure action. Citing rule 1.540(b)(4)

, the motion alleged both that the final judgment is void for lack of service and that it is void and erroneous as a matter of law insofar as paragraph five purported to foreclose the first mortgage.

The trial court held a hearing on the motion and orally denied it, finding no issue with service of process. When asked about the ruling as to the paragraph five issue, the court stated the motion was denied on the same grounds. The trial court's written order is boilerplate and provides no findings or conclusions. Bank of America appealed that order, commencing case number 2D14–858.

During the pendency of the appeal and before it was perfected, the Association, as an appellee in the case, asked this court to relinquish jurisdiction to allow the trial court to rule on the Association's motion to amend the final judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(a)

, which alleged that the foreclosure judgment contained a clerical error. This court relinquished jurisdiction. Bank of America joined in the Association's rule 1.540(a) motion. At the hearing on that motion, the Association argued that the final judgment failed to delineate which of Bank of America's mortgages the Association's lien was foreclosing and that this was a clerical error or misnomer, correctable via a rule 1.540(a) motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the complaint “only alleged the one Bank of America O.R. book and page of the mortgage,” and “that there was no additional mortgage noted in the initial complaint.” Therefore, the court ruled that it would be a substantive issue to amend the final judgment and not a clerical change. The court also found that “to the extent [the Association] complains that the Final Judgment improperly purports to eliminate a first mortgage of Bank of America, the [c]ourt is persuaded that said issue has already been litigated adverse to Bank of America in [the quiet title action].” However, the only issue before the court in the quiet title action was whether service on Bank of America was proper. Bank of America appealed the court's denial of the rule 1.540(a)

motion, commencing case number 2D14–4436.³

II. Discussion

An order denying relief under rule 1.540(b)

is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Leach v. Salehpour, 19 So.3d 342, 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). But “[a] decision whether or not to vacate a void judgment is not within the ambit of a trial court's discretion; if a judgment previously entered is void, the trial court must vacate the judgment.” Wiggins v. Tigrent, Inc., 147 So.3d 76, 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Here, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Bank of America's motion as to the judgment foreclosing its first mortgage on the “same grounds” that it denied the motion based on lack of service of process. Reversal is warranted on that basis alone. However, because the court later denied the rule 1.540(a) motion based, in part, on its finding that the issue of whether the judgment was void had been resolved against Bank of America in the quiet title action, we address the merits of Bank of America's claim that the foreclosure judgment is void.

A. Priority of interests

The priority of interests in real estate under Florida law is generally determined by the operation of three statutes. Section 28.222(2), Florida Statutes (2004)

, requires the clerk of the circuit court to record instruments in the official records and to “keep a register in which he or she shall enter at the time of filing the filing number of each instrument filed for record, the date and hour of filing, the kind of instrument, and the names of the parties to the instrument.” Section 695.11, Florida Statutes (2004), provides that “[t]he sequence of [official register numbers required under section 28.222 ] shall determine the priority of recordation” so that “[a]n instrument bearing the lower number in the then-current series of numbers shall have priority over any instrument bearing a higher number in the same series.” The legal significance of priority of recordation comes into play in the context of the rule established in section 695.01(1), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides as follows: “No conveyance, transfer, or mortgage of real property, or of any interest therein ... shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be...