Malden v. Chase Home Fin., LLC

• Decision Date: 04 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1D19-4102,1D19-4102
• Citation: 312 So.3d 553
• Parties: Timothy L. MALDEN, Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

312 So.3d 553

Timothy L. MALDEN, Appellant,

v.CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D19-4102

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 4, 2021

Donald L. Dempsey, II, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Timothy Malden has appealed the trial court's dismissal of his civil complaint against Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase), "with prejudice." Because the face of Mr. Malden's complaint states a claim for relief and does not reveal the applicability of any defense, we reverse the trial court's dismissal.

Mr. Malden's complaint alleged that he was damaged by certain improper conduct by Chase in its efforts to collect on a mortgage. Although Mr. Malden's complaint makes no reference to any earlier actions, he previously filed several actions against Chase regarding this incident. Records of the prior actions were not included in the record of the instant appeal; however, the records are contained in a prior appeal between the parties of a previous dismissal "with prejudice" by the trial court. We take judicial notice of said records here. See Schneider v. Schneider , 189 So. 3d 276, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (taking judicial notice of this Court's own records from a previous appeal in the case)). All of the prior actions were procedurally dismissed on motion from Chase.

When this action was filed, Chase again moved for dismissal, arguing that Mr. Malden's claims were precluded. Despite having moved for procedural dismissal in each previous action, Chase argued that the claims had been resolved on the merits, and that Mr. Malden had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims previously. Thus, Chase reasoned that res judicata and collateral estoppel applied and required dismissal of Mr. Malden's most recent complaint. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without expanding on its reasoning for doing so, a dismissal which Mr. Malden now appeals.

Whether a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action is a question of law, reviewed de novo. Nero v. Cont'l Country Club R.O., Inc. , 979 So. 2d 263, 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The analysis must be confined to the four corners of the complaint. Newberry Square Fla. Laundromat, LLC v. Jim's Coin Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. , 296 So. 3d 584, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Because the analysis is so confined, complaints generally cannot be procedurally dismissed on motion based on an affirmative defense or excuse, as this would require the trial court to consider matters outside the four corners of the complaint. Id.

The sole exception which allows dismissal of a complaint based on claim preclusion is the instance when a complaint "affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense" on its face, without reference to any outside information. Id. (quoting Williams v. Gaffin Indus. Servs., Inc. , 88 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). "[S]tated differently, ‘[a] motion to dismiss should not be granted on the basis...