Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA
Decision Date | 11 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 3D14–230.,3D14–230. |
Parties | Pablo SALAZAR, Appellant, v. HSBC BANK, USA, NA, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Neustein Law Group and Nicole Moskowitz, Aventura, for appellant.
Marinosci Law Group, P.C. and Bart T. Heffernan, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before WELLS, LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a post-final judgment order in a foreclosure action entered some three and one half years after a final judgment was entered. That postjudgment order declares the homeowner the prevailing party in the case and according to the homeowner when combined with earlier orders of the court dismisses the foreclosure action in its entirety. Because the court below was without jurisdiction to enter such a post judgment order, we reverse the order under review with instructions for the immediate release of the certificate of title currently being held by the clerk of the court.
This appeal stems from a simple, straight forward mortgage foreclosure action in which condominium owner Pablo Salazar was served with process, failed to answer or defend in any manner, and was defaulted. A summary judgment foreclosing the mortgage secured by Salazar's condominium was entered in January of 2009. Salazar filed no post-judgment motions at that time nor did he appeal from the final judgment.
Seven months later, in July of 2009, Salazar's condominium was sold and a certificate of sale was filed by the clerk of the court. Salazar, in a single motion, objected to the sale and moved to set aside the final judgment claiming only that he had been working with his lender, HSBC, to modify the now foreclosed loan and that HSBC had advised him not to worry about the default or the judgment because they would work it out. Although these grounds were legally insufficient to ify the foreclosure sale, the sale was vacated. See IndyMac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan, 104 So.3d 1232, 1236–1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ( )(quoting Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016, 1017–18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ) (emphasis added).1 No order was entered on Salazar's motion to set aside the final judgment.
Six months later, the condominium was sold a second time and a new certificate of sale was filed. Salazar again moved to set aside the final judgment and objected to the second sale asserting the same grounds asserted in his first motion to set aside the final judgment and to nullify the first sale, that is, that he had been trying to renegotiate the now foreclosed loan and that HSBC had advised him that he did not need to worry about the foreclosure action. This time, both his motion to set aside the final judgment and his objection to the sale were denied. While these rulings marked the end of the trial court's jurisdiction over this matter2 except to enforce the final judgment by its terms3 , the court below nonetheless ordered the clerk to withhold the certificate of title until such time as HSBC appeared “to explain why the mortgage modification ha[d] not been completed, ha[d] taken so long, and why [Salazar] will not qualify for a mortgage modification.” The trial court then “dismissed” the case and declared Salazar the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees after HSBC failed to appear to explain itself.
We reject the argument advanced by Salazar that this last order ified the final judgment of foreclosure making him the prevailing party for an award of attorney's fees. “Trial courts do not ... have the power, absent an appropriate motion under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530 or 1.540, to modify a judgment once it becomes final.” Vargas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 104 So.3d 1156, 1165–66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ( ); see also Cent. Mortgage Co. v. Callahan, 155 So.3d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ( ).
In sum, after the court below correctly rejected Salazar's last motion to set aside the final judgment (and denied his objections to the last sale), the court below had no authority to either order HSBC to explain why it had not agreed to renegotiate Salazar's loan or to dismiss this foreclosure action.4
The order on appeal is therefore reversed with instructions to the clerk of the court to file and record the certificate of title validating the last sale of Salazar's condominium. In the event the certificate at issue is no longer valid, the condominium is to be resold and a certificate of sale and title filed and recorded forthwith.
1 As IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, 104 So.3d at 1236–1237 explains:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kingland Estates, Ltd. v. Davis
...a conspiracy claim or RICO claim much less personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. See Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA, 158 So.3d 699, 702 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“Salazar's claim that he had been trying to renegotiate his loan and that HSBC had represented that it would be w......
-
Pensacola Beach, L. L.C. v. Am. Fid. Life Ins. Co.
...of the certificate of title, or to fall within the very narrow fraud exception to that finality. See Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA , 158 So. 3d 699, 702 & n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (rejecting attempts to vacate foreclosure judgment where claimant failed to file a legally-sufficient claim under......
-
Chapter 14-4 Post-Judgment Objections to Sale
...LLC., 121 So. 3d 511, 516 (Fla. 2013)(quoting Arlt v. Buchanan, 190 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. 1966)).[241] Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA, 158 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Seven months later, in July of 2009, Salazar's condominium was sold and a certificate of sale was filed by the clerk......
-
Chapter 14-4 Post-Judgment Objections to Sale
...the trial court under rule 1.540, we decline to address any application of the rule in this case.").[186] Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA, 158 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("Seven months later, in July of 2009, Salazar's condominium was sold and a certificate of sale was filed by the cl......