Epstein v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n
| Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D13–4066.,4D13–4066. |
| Citation | 162 So.3d 159 |
| Parties | Heather EPSTEIN, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, National Association, as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee Under the Securitization Servicing Agreement Dated July 1, 2004 Structured Asset Securities Corporation Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Series 2004–7, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
162 So.3d 159
Heather EPSTEIN, Appellant
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, National Association, as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee Under the Securitization Servicing Agreement Dated July 1, 2004 Structured Asset Securities Corporation Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Passthrough Certificates, Series 2004–7, Appellee.
No. 4D13–4066.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 28, 2015.
Rehearing En Banc Denied May 6, 2015.
Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, and Roy D. Oppenheim, Geoffrey E. Sherman, and Jacquelyn K. Trask of Oppenheim & Pilelsky, for appellant.
Manuel S. Hiraldo of Blank Rome, LLP, Boca Raton, for appellee.
Opinion
CONNER, J.
The homeowner appeals the trial court's order granting the bank's motion to vacate the final summary judgment of foreclosure, sale, and certificate of title. The homeowner argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion filed over three years after the final summary judgment was entered. We agree and reverse.
Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings
The problem began when the mortgage was signed using an incorrect legal description for the real property. Subsequently, the bank filed a foreclosure complaint. In December 2009, a final summary judgment of foreclosure was entered using the incorrect legal description. The foreclosure sale was conducted the following August with the bank as the highest bidder. Shortly thereafter, a certificate of title containing the incorrect legal description was issued to the bank.
Two years later, in September 2012, the bank filed its first motion to vacate the final summary judgment, sale, and certificate of title. The motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), alleging that, “due to an inadvertent mistake,” the legal description of the property in the mortgage was incorrect, and therefore, the bank needed to amend the complaint to add a reformation count. It also alleged that the incorrect legal description in the foreclosure judgment prevented the bank from obtaining clear title to the property. In October 2012, the trial court entered an order denying the bank's motion, “without prejudice.”
In January 2013, the bank filed its second motion to vacate. This second motion was also filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), but, additionally, pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(4), on the added grounds that the final judgment was void. In this motion, the bank admitted that it was made aware of the error in the legal description in the mortgage and final judgment in October 2010, ten months after the judgment was entered. The motion alleged that the error in the legal description in the final judgment was clouding the title to property owned by a third party.
A hearing was held on the bank's second motion. At the hearing, the homeowner objected to the bank's second motion, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because rule 1.540(b)(1) has a one-year time limit for vacating a judgment, and the bank's motion was filed more than a year after
the judgment was entered. The bank renewed its argument that the incorrect legal description rendered the judgment void, making the one-year time limitation inapplicable. The trial court granted the bank's second motion. This appeal follows.
Appellate Analysis and Disposition
“An appellate court reviews an order on a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment under an abuse of discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denia L. v. Dep't of Child Safety
...at any time, a voidable order must be modified on appeal or pursuant to Rule 24.3," Ariz. R. Crim. P.); Epstein v. Bank of America , 162 So. 3d 159, 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (if judgment void it can be attacked at any time, but if voidable it is subject to time limits of rule for reli......
-
FL Homes 1 LLC v. Toula Kokolis, of the Toula Kokolis Revocable Trust
...initial foreclosure judgment was void for failure to join an indispensable party distinguishes this case from Epstein v. Bank of America , 162 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). There, we rejected a bank's due process challenge to a final judgment where the bank was not asserting its own const......
-
Drouin v. Stuber
...rights were violated. We agree. “ ‘Constitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.’ ” Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So.3d 159, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (trial court granted bank's rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate a foreclosure that contained wrong legal description; rejec......
-
Dabas v. Bos. Investors Grp., Inc.
...ruling on a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. See Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So.3d 159, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, "[a] decision whether or not to vacate a void judgment is not within the ambit of a trial court's discreti......
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(b)(4), trial court should have set aside "order" entered without notice as void).[57] Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So. 3d 159, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (motion to vacate judgment with erroneous legal description held time-barred under Rule 1.540(b)); Cornelius v. Hol......
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(b)(4), trial court should have set aside "order" entered without notice as void).[76] Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So. 3d 159, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (motion to vacate judgment with erroneous legal description held time-barred under Rule 1.540(b)); Cornelius v. Hol......
-
Chapter 5-9 Reformation
...(1), the lender would have to move under rule 1.540(b) within one year of the final judgment.").[68] Epstein v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n, 162 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA...
-
Chapter 5-9 Reformation
...Id. (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Giesel, 155 So. 3d 411, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).[63] Epstein v. Bank of Am., Nat'l Ass'n, 162 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).[64] Cornelius v. Holzman, 193 So. 3d 1029, 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("Here, the allegation must have been under subsection (1......