Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 August 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 3D18-1868,3D18-1868 |
Citation | 278 So.3d 796 |
Parties | LAMOISE GROUP, LLC, Appellant, v. The EDGEWATER SOUTH BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Law Office of Douglas D. Stratton, P.A. and Douglas D. Stratton, for appellant.
Eric J. Grabois, P.L. and Eric J. Grabois, for appellee CM7 Investment, Inc.
Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and MILLER, JJ.
Appellant, Lamoise Group, LLC, challenges the denial of its motion to vacate a final decree dismissing the entire action, including its crossclaim. Appellant contends that a deprivation of due process renders the crossclaim dismissal void ab initio, thus, the lower tribunal erred in denying relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4). For the reasons articulated below, we reverse.
The genesis of this dispute lies in a lawsuit initiated by Edgewater South Beach Condominium Association, Inc. ("Edgewater") against appellant and appellee, CM7 Investment, Inc. Following the commencement of litigation, appellant filed a crossclaim against appellee. Pursuant to a joint motion for voluntary dismissal, Edgewater and appellee, "move[d] for an order dismissing each party's claims against each other." Although both appellee and Edgewater signed the joint motion, appellant did not, and the motion excluded any reference to appellant's crossclaim. The predecessor court entered a final order of dismissal, without conducting a hearing, writing "this matter is and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice."1 Appellant was not served with a copy of the order of dismissal.
Nearly two years later, appellant discovered the entire action stood dismissed. Thereafter, it petitioned the lower court for relief from the dismissal "pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4), which[, regardless of the passage of time,] authorizes a trial court to afford relief to a party when ‘[a] judgment or decree is void.’ " Courtney v. Catalina, Ltd., 130 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) ). The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found appellant received neither advance notice its crossclaim was subject to dismissal, nor a copy of the rendered dismissal order. Nonetheless, it determined that the final order was voidable, rather than void, thus, the failure to move for relief within one year after the entry of the decree proved fatal. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1-3). The instant appeal ensued.
Ordinarily, we review an order denying relief from a final judgment under rule 1.540(b) for an abuse of discretion. Shields v. Flinn, 528 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). However, "[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) ; see also Horton v. Rodriguez Espaillat y Asociados, 926 So. 2d 436, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) () (citation omitted). "As a trial court's ruling on whether a judgment is void presents a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court's ruling de novo."
Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Diaz, 227 So. 3d 726, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ( ).
Rule 1.540(b)(4) provides relief from void judgments and decrees where the motion for relief is "filed within a reasonable time," whereas relief from voidable judgments must be sought no more than one year after entry. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) (); see Shields, 528 So. 2d at 968 ; Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ; Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Certainly, there is "a distinction ... between a judgment that is void and one that is voidable." Tannenbaum v. Shea, 133 So. 3d 1056, 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation omitted). "A void judgment is so defective that it is deemed never to have had legal force and effect." Dabas v. Boston Inv'rs Grp., Inc., 231 So. 3d 542, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citation omitted). "Generally, a judgment is void if: (1) the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over the party; or (3) if, in the proceedings leading up to the judgment, there is a violation of the due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard." Diaz, 227 So. 3d at 729 (citing Tannenbaum, 133 So. 3d at 1061 ).
Procedural due process requires fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard and defend in a manner "appropriate to the nature of the case," before judgment is rendered.2 Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 1190, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1965) () (citations omitted); see J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060, 1063 (Fla. 2000) () (quoting Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1991) ). It is axiomatic that "[p]arties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified." Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 1994, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972) (citation omitted).
Here, as both parties acknowledged, and the trial court found, appellant, a non-party to the motion for voluntary dismissal, did not receive notice that the continuing viability of its crossclaim was subject to imminent adjudication. Accordingly, appellant was denied procedural due process, and the ensuing judgment was void. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Condo. Ass'n of La Mer Estates, Inc., 175 So. 3d 282, 285 (Fla. 2015) () (citation omitted); Dabas, 231 So. 3d at 546 () ; cf. Contreras v. Mendez, 194 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ( ).
Finally, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a) requires "all orders" issued by a trial court be "served in conformity with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516," which delineates the permissible methods of service of pleadings, other documents filed by the parties, and court orders. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b) (). Here, the failure to furnish appellant with a copy of the final disposition, in combination with the earlier deprivation of notice, rendered the decree void.3 Courtney, 130 So. 3d at 740 ( ).
As the denial of procedural due process rendered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Tran v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 3D19-2215
..."if a judgment previously entered is void, the trial court must vacate the judgment." Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 278 So. 3d 796, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (citation omitted). "As a trial court's ruling on whether a judgment is void presents a question of law, a......
-
Specialty Solutions, Inc. v. Baxter Gypsum & Concrete, LLC
...(citing State, Dep't of Transp. v. Bailey , 603 So. 2d 1384, 1386–87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) )); Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n , 278 So. 3d 796, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("[I]f a judgment previously entered is void, the trial court must vacate the judgment." (quoting Wiggin......
-
Olson v. ECO Marine Contractor, LLC
...judgment is void; no discretion is involved in that instance. Avael, 305 So. 3d at 596 (quoting Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, 278 So. 3d 796, 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("[I]f a judgment previously entered is void, the trial court must vacate the judgment.")). An order r......
- Hanna v. State
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...fraud, as assignments of mortgages are not required to transfer mortgages.").[96] Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, 278 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).[97] U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57, 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Rule 1.540(b) provides a iimited aven......
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...fraud, as assignments of mortgages are not required to transfer mortgages.").[128] Lamoise Grp., LLC v. Edgewater S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, 278 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). It has been held that eight years later is not a "reasonable time." See Harvard Fin. Servs., LLC v. Remy-Calixte, 283 S......