Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Trust Co.
Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1D15–0937.,1D15–0937. |
Citation | 181 So.3d 1275 |
Parties | Joseph A. and Mary Ann MUSA, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO DELAWARE TRUST COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joseph A. and Mary Ann Musa, pro se, Appellants.
Morgan L. Weinstein of Van Ness Law Firm, PLC, Deerfield Beach, for Appellee.
Joseph and Mary Ann Musa appeal a final judgment of foreclosure. They contend the final judgment is void because they had removed the case to federal court, depriving the state court of jurisdiction to proceed, before the judgment was entered. We agree and reverse.
An order void for want of jurisdiction in the lower tribunal may be challenged on appeal, even where the jurisdictional defect was not raised below. Polk Cty. v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Fla.1997) ; see 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ( ; see also Maidman v. Jomar Hotel Corp., 384 So.2d 728, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) () .
Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Company (Wells Fargo), initiated the foreclosure action below against defendants, including Mr. and Mrs. Musa, in October of 2011. On February 10, 2015, a day before the final hearing, the Musas filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and filed a copy of the notice in state circuit court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(a), (d) (West 2015).1 The circuit court proceeded with the scheduled hearing on February 11, 2015, notwithstanding the notice of removal (and the Musas' failure to appear).2 On February 12, 2015, the circuit court entered the final judgment in favor of Wells Fargo that the Musas challenge here.
A "state court is allowed to resume jurisdiction of the removed case if, and only if, the federal court grants permission by entering an order of remand." Preston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 627 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) ). Removal to federal court and the effect of removal are governed by federal law. See Harris v. State, 41 Ark. App. 207, 850 S.W.2d 41, 42 (1993). The current version of 28 U.S.C. § 1446, which was in effect when the Musas filed their notice of removal, provides:
28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (West 2015) (boldface omitted) (emphasis added). "Hence, after removal, the jurisdiction of the state court absolutely ceases and the state court has a duty not to proceed any further in the case. Any subsequent proceedings in state court on the case are void ab initio. " Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248, 1254–55 (11th Cir.1988) (internal citation omitted); see DB50 2007–1 Tr. v. Dixon, 314 Ga.App. 194, 723 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2012) .
In a 1948 revision to the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 72 was consolidated with other statutes into 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Then a newly enacted statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, provided in pertinent part:
Hopson v. N. Am. Ins. Co., 71 Idaho 461, 233 P.2d 799, 800–01 (1951) (emphasis added) (discussing 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (West 1949) ). The earlier version of the federal removal statute had provided, as follows:
"
Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Rub, 481 N.W.2d 451, 455 n. 4 (N.D.1992) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 72 (1946)) (emphasis added). Under the 1946 statute, "if the facts stated in a petition were insufficient for removal, the state court could ignore the petition and any action by the state court while the removal was pending in federal court was valid if the federal court subsequently remanded the case." Id. at 455–56 (citing Metro. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 312 U.S. 563, 61 S.Ct. 715, 85 L.Ed. 1044 (1941) ).3 But replacing the earlier version of the removal statute changed the rule.
The Hopson court analyzed the effect under the new removal statute of giving notice of the filing of a verified petition for removal, explaining:
233 P.2d at 802 (emphasis added). The Hopson court held that a state court order entering a default against a defendant who had filed a petition for removal was void, and had been properly vacated. Id. at 799–800, 802.
Since 1948, Congress has amended 28 U.S.C. § 1446 nine times. In 1988, subsection (a) was amended directing state court defendants to file merely a "notice of removal" rather than a "verified petition," in order to effect removal to federal court. Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100–702, § 1016(b)(1), 102 Stat. 4642; see Standridge v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 945 F.Supp. 252, 254 (N.D.Ga.1996) (discussing this amendment). In 1991, this change was fully implemented "by striking ‘petition for’ each place it appears and inserting ‘notice of,’ " and "by striking ‘petition’ each place it appears and inserting ‘notice.’ " Judicial Improvements, Pub.L. No. 102–198, § 10(a)(1), (4), 105 Stat. 1623.
The language in subsection (d)4 on which the Hopson court relied—providing that filing a copy of the notice of removal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fernando v. City of Chickasaw
... ... at the time of the removal.'" (citation omitted)); ... Musa v. Wells Fargo Delaware Tr. Co. , 181 So.3d ... 1275, 1276 (Fla ... ...
-
Ricci v. Ventures Tr. 2013-I-H-R By MCM Capital Partners, LLC
...the lower tribunal may be challenged on appeal,even where the jurisdictional defect was not raised below." Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., 181 So. 3d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Generally, "a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is proper only when the court lacks authority to hea......
-
Cole v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 5D15–2118.
...the case back to the trial court, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the final judgment.1 See Musa v. Wells Fargo Del. Tr. Co., 181 So.3d 1275, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“We hold the final judgment entered by the court below after removal of the case to federal court (and prior to......
-
Bank of Am. v. Bozek
...See Eastern, 75 Ill. 2d at 571 (citing cases); Martin-Trigona, 28 Ill. App. 3d at 606 (citing cases); Musa v. Wells Fargo of Delaware Trust Co., 181 So.3d 1275, 1283-84 (2015); State ex rel. Morrison v. Price, 285 Kan. 389, 394-96 (2007).1 Since the defendants satisfied the procedural steps......