Paladin Properties v. Family Inv. Enter., No. 2D06-4208.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Stringer |
| Citation | 952 So.2d 560 |
| Parties | PALADIN PROPERTIES, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FAMILY INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D06-4208. |
v.
FAMILY INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, a Florida corporation, Appellee.
Lauriane Ciccarelli of Troiano & Roberts, PA, Lakeland, for Appellant.
Ricardo Santander of Stephen H. Artman, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee.
STRINGER, Judge.
Paladin Properties appeals from the trial court's order that set aside a default judgment entered against Family Investment Enterprises in an action grounded on a promissory note. Because we agree with Paladin that the trial court abused its discretion
in setting aside the default judgment, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the default judgment.
In 2002, Paladin and Family Investment entered into a lease agreement pursuant to which Family Investment leased three suites in a commercial property from Paladin. In 2004, Family Investment stopped making the required monthly payments under the lease agreement. As a result, the parties negotiated a new lease agreement that allowed Family Investment to lease a single suite in the same commercial property at a reduced lease rate. As part of that same transaction, Paladin obtained a promissory note signed by James T. Newton, one of Family Investment's principals, to secure payment of the deficiency that was due from Family Investment under the original lease agreement.
In 2005, Family Investment allegedly stopped making the payments due under the promissory note. Paladin sued Family Investment for breach of the promissory note and attached to its complaint the original lease agreement, the new lease agreement, and the promissory note. Family Investment did not respond to the complaint, and the clerk entered a default against Family Investment on August 18, 2005. Paladin then filed a motion for default judgment against Family Investment based on the monetary terms of the promissory note. On September 15, 2005, after a hearing, the trial court entered a default judgment against Family Investment for the amounts due under the promissory note. Several months later, on January 10, 2006, Paladin obtained an amended default judgment that corrected some minor errors in the original default judgment. Both the original default judgment and the amended default judgment were rendered by Judge Jacobsen.
On January 27, 2006, Family Investment filed its first notice of appearance in the case and filed a motion for rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 directed to the amended final judgment. Paladin filed an objection to the motion; however, neither party set the motion for hearing. Instead, on March 1, 2006, Family Investment filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). In its motion, Family Investment alleged that the default judgment had been entered by mistake because the promissory note was not signed by Family Investment but rather by James T. Newton in his individual capacity. Thus, Family Investment contended that Paladin had sued and obtained a default judgment against the wrong defendant and that this was a "mistake" that was correctable under rule 1.540(b). A hearing on the motion to set aside the default judgment was set for August 17, 2006.
At some point between January 10, 2006, and August 17, 2006, the original trial judge, Judge Jacobsen, had been reassigned to a different division within the Tenth Judicial Circuit. Thus, the hearing on Family Investment's motion to set aside the default judgment was heard by a successor judge, Judge Maloney. At that hearing, Family Investment argued that Judge Jacobsen had entered the default judgment based on a mistake of fact. Family Investment contended that Paladin had misrepresented to Judge Jacobsen that Family Investment was the maker of the promissory note when, in fact, it was James T. Newton. Family Investment argued that this "mistake" could be corrected by a motion pursuant to rule 1.540(b). Paladin argued that it had not made any misrepresentations; that Judge Jacobsen had reviewed the file, including the leases and the note, before ruling; and that the default judgment was not entered based on a mistake of fact. Paladin also argued
that even if an error had been made, it was a judicial error that could not be corrected under rule 1.540(b) but that should have been corrected by way of appeal. Judge Maloney found that Judge Jacobsen had made a mistake and set aside the default judgment based on that finding. Paladin then brought this appeal, raising two grounds for reversal.
Paladin first contends that the successor trial judge, Judge Maloney, erred in considering Family Investment's motion because it should have been heard by the original trial judge, Judge Jacobsen. We disagree.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that a successor judge may revisit a final judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archie v. U.S. Bank, N.A., s. 18-CV-945
...must actually negate the cause of action — not simply raise possible defenses to it") (quoting Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So. 2d 560, 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) ).B. The Statute of Limitations Ms. Archie contends in the alternative that she was entitled to dismissal of t......
-
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 4D13–1597.
...the exhibits must actually negate the cause of action—not simply raise possible defenses to it.” Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).Here, we find that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action for mortgage foreclosu......
-
Archie v. U.S. Bank, 18-CV-945
...must actually negate the cause of action - not simply raise possible defenses to it") (quoting Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)). B. The Statute of Limitations Ms. Archie contends in the alternative that she was entitled to dismissal of th......
-
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 4D13-1597
...the exhibits must actually negate the cause of action—not simply raise possible defenses to it." Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So. 2d 560, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Here, we find that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action for mortgage foreclo......
-
Archie v. U.S. Bank, N.A., s. 18-CV-945
...must actually negate the cause of action — not simply raise possible defenses to it") (quoting Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So. 2d 560, 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) ).B. The Statute of Limitations Ms. Archie contends in the alternative that she was entitled to dismissal of t......
-
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 4D13–1597.
...the exhibits must actually negate the cause of action—not simply raise possible defenses to it.” Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).Here, we find that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action for mortgage foreclosu......
-
Archie v. U.S. Bank, 18-CV-945
...must actually negate the cause of action - not simply raise possible defenses to it") (quoting Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)). B. The Statute of Limitations Ms. Archie contends in the alternative that she was entitled to dismissal of th......
-
Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 4D13-1597
...the exhibits must actually negate the cause of action—not simply raise possible defenses to it." Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So. 2d 560, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Here, we find that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action for mortgage foreclo......