Rangel v. MidFirst Bank
| Decision Date | 02 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D15–548.,4D15–548. |
| Parties | Baldomiano RANGEL, Appellant, v. MIDFIRST BANK, Francisco Tapia, Elia Puga, Jose Andres Sanchez a/k/a Andres Sanchez, Unknown Spouse of Francisco Tapia, Unknown Spouse of Jose Andres Sanchez a/k/a Andres Sanchez, Unknown Tenant 1, Unknown Tenant 2, and All Unknown Parties Claiming by, Through, Under or Against the Above Named Defendant(S), Who (Is/Are) Not Known to be Dead Or Alive, Whether Said Unknown Parties Claim As Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, Spouses, or Other Claimants, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, State of Florida Department of Revenue, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
187 So.3d 289
Baldomiano RANGEL, Appellant,
v.
MIDFIRST BANK, Francisco Tapia, Elia Puga, Jose Andres Sanchez a/k/a Andres Sanchez, Unknown Spouse of Francisco Tapia, Unknown Spouse of Jose Andres Sanchez a/k/a Andres Sanchez, Unknown Tenant 1, Unknown Tenant 2, and All Unknown Parties Claiming by, Through, Under or Against the Above Named Defendant(S), Who (Is/Are) Not Known to be Dead Or Alive, Whether Said Unknown Parties Claim As Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, Spouses, or Other Claimants, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, State of Florida Department of Revenue, Appellees.
No. 4D15–548.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 2, 2016.
Ronald Denis of Denis Law Offices, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Nicole R. Ramirez of eXL Legal, PLLC, St. Petersburg, for appellee MidFirst Bank.
DAMOORGIAN, J.
Baldomiano Rangel ("Homeowner") appeals the trial court's entry of a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of MidFirst Bank (the "Bank") following a bench trial. Homeowner specifically argues that the trial court erred in striking his belated answer without first entering a default. Although we conclude the court erred in striking the belated answer, we affirm because Homeowner did not preserve the error in any manner.
By way of background, the Bank initiated a residential foreclosure action against Homeowner and moved for judicial default after he failed to file any responsive pleadings. In response, Homeowner filed a motion to dismiss the foreclosure action. The trial court denied Homeowner's motion and ordered Homeowner to file his answer within twenty days from the date of the order, specifying that "[i]f the [Homeowner] fails to timely file an Answer pursuant to this Order, the [Homeowner] shall be deemed in default without any further action by the Court." Homeowner did not comply with the order and instead waited nearly nine months to file his answer. No default was entered during those nine months. The Bank moved to strike the belated answer, arguing that Homeowner's failure to comply with the trial court's order constituted an automatic default per the self-executing language in that order.
The record reflects that a hearing was held on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Trust Realty, LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...the only remaining issue in the case at the time State Trust intervened was damages. See id.; see also Rangel v. MidFirst Bank, 187 So.3d 289, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (noting that a default judgment in a foreclosure action "only serve[s] to admit liability and not damages"). Second, by virt......
- Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty. v. City of Coral Springs, 4D15–2213.
-
Azure-Moore Invs. LLC v. Hoyen, No. 4D19-2619
...1.500(c), "which specifically requires both notice of the application of default and actual entry of default." Rangel v. MidFirst Bank , 187 So. 3d 289, 290–91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). This means that a default at this point can neither be entered as a ministerial matter by the clerk, nor can i......
-
Black Point Assets, Inc. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
...5th DCA 2018) ; Yellow Jacket Marina, Inc. v. Paletti , 670 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ; see also Rangel v. MidFirst Bank , 187 So. 3d 289, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding the trial court’s "self-executing" default language included in prior order denying defendant’s motion to ......
-
Civil litigation
...A court may not override the requirement of notice before entry of a default where a party has appeared. [ Rangel v. MidFirst Bank , 187 So. 3d 289, 290-91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that self-executing language in order permitting entry of a default without notice violated Rule 1.500(c) ......