Bank of New York Mellon v. Poker Run Acquisitions, Inc.
208 So. 3d 199
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Poker Run acquired title to a property after executing on a judgment against borrower Gorrin; Bank of New York Mellon (the Bank) held a mortgage on the property and later filed a foreclosure action against Poker Run.
- In a separate guaranty case brought by Poker Run against Gorrin, the court entered a Closing Order directing payment of the Bank’s claimed payoff at closing and stating the court reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate any claim that the amount due was less.
- The Property sold and the Bank accepted $3,033,089.65 as payoff pursuant to the Closing Order; the Bank then filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in the Foreclosure Case.
- Poker Run moved to strike the Notice and the Foreclosure Case proceeded to bench trial; the trial court concluded it retained jurisdiction via the Closing Order and entered a Final Judgment requiring the Bank to remit funds to Poker Run, later corrected in an Amended Final Judgment.
- The Bank appealed, arguing the voluntary dismissal divested the court of jurisdiction; Poker Run cross-appealed the amended judgment’s interest/charges award and sought prevailing-party attorneys’ fees (denied by the court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction after the Bank filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal | Poker Run: the Closing Order’s reservation of jurisdiction (in the separate guaranty case) preserved the court’s power to adjudicate the payoff dispute | Bank: the voluntary dismissal under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420 divested the court of jurisdiction in the Foreclosure Case | Reversed — voluntary dismissal divested the court; Closing Order in the separate case did not preserve jurisdiction in the Foreclosure Case (Pino governs) |
| Whether the Amended Final Judgment awarding additional interest/charges to the Bank was proper | Poker Run: Bank was only entitled to the tendered payoff amount; interest/charges improper | Bank: trial court’s calculation awarding interest and charges was correct | Not reached on merits — judgment vacated because court lacked jurisdiction after dismissal |
| Whether the denial of Poker Run’s prevailing-party attorneys’ fees should stand | Poker Run: it was the prevailing party and entitled to fees under §57.105 | Bank: denial appropriate (or merits not reached because dismissal controls) | Vacated — order denying fees entered after dismissal and thus void for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Poker Run has any remedy to recover alleged overpayment taken by Bank | Poker Run: seek repayment for amounts Bank was not entitled to retain | Bank: had been paid under Closing Order and dismissed action | Court: Poker Run may bring a separate suit to recover overpayment; no opinion on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013) (voluntary dismissal instantaneously divests the court of jurisdiction to enter further orders disposing of the case on the merits)
- Albert v. Albert, 36 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (distinguishing voluntary dismissals from court-ordered dismissals tied to approved settlement agreements where jurisdiction to enforce may remain)
- Gorrin v. Poker Run Acquisitions, Inc., 77 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (appellate history of the related guaranty litigation)
- Santiago v. Mauna Loa Invs., LLC, 189 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2016) (separate proceedings retain independent existence)