Bank of America, N.A. v. Kipps Colony II Condominium Association, Inc., 201 So. 3d 670

Kipps Colony II Condominium Association sued the Knightons for unpaid assessments and named Bank of America (BofA) as a defendant, alleging BofA "may claim" interests by recorded mortgages but not clearly identifying that BofA held both a first and a second mortgage.
A default was entered against BofA; the trial court granted final summary judgment foreclosing the Association's lien on December 19, 2011. Paragraph 5 stated the Association's lien was "superior in dignity" to any rights of the defendants and ordered sale free and clear of defendants' claims.
The property sold January 28, 2013; Inland Assets bought it and obtained a quiet-title judgment as to BofA's mortgages after BofA again failed to appear in the quiet-title action.
BofA later moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to vacate the foreclosure and quiet-title judgments, arguing lack of service and that the foreclosure judgment was void to the extent it purported to extinguish BofA's superior first mortgage; the trial court denied relief.
The Second District reversed, holding the foreclosure judgment was void insofar as it purported to foreclose BofA's first mortgage and directing the trial court to grant BofA relief under rule 1.540(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Association's foreclosure judgment validly extinguished BofA's first mortgage	Association: judgment properly foreclosed junior lien; any ambiguity was clerical and could be corrected under rule 1.540(a)	BofA: foreclosure could not terminate a senior mortgage; judgment is void to the extent it purports to extinguish the first mortgage	Court: Judgment is void as to extinguishing the superior first mortgage; vacate under rule 1.540(b)
Whether lack of proper service rendered judgments void	Association: service was adequate (trial court found no service issue)	BofA: judgments (foreclosure and quiet title) were void for lack of proper service	Court: Although it found trial court abused discretion for denying relief on the foreclosure-foreclosure-of-first-mortgage ground, service issue was not resolved in BofA's favor; reversal based on legal voidness of foreclosure as to senior mortgage
Whether the final judgment's paragraph 5 was a clerical error correctable under rule 1.540(a)	Association: misidentification/omission was clerical; amendment permissible to reflect intended scope	BofA: the paragraph substantive and void because it attempted to extinguish a superior interest; not a mere clerical mistake	Court: The issue was substantive — judgment that purported to foreclose a senior mortgage is void; rule 1.540(a) amendment inappropriate to cure that defect; vacatur under rule 1.540(b) required

Leach v. Salehpour, 19 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA) (standard of review for denial of rule 1.540(b) relief)
Wiggins v. Tigrent, Inc., 147 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2d DCA) (void-judgment vacatur is mandatory; not discretionary)
Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 968 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA) (distinguishing void vs. voidable judgments)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Henry, 24 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA) (junior foreclosing party cannot compel foreclosure of senior mortgage)
City of Palm Bay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 114 So. 3d 924 (Fla.) (notice-recording priority rules)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bevans, 138 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA) (foreclosure does not affect interests senior to the mortgage being foreclosed)