Carlisle v. U.S. Bank, National Ass'n
225 So. 3d 893
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- U.S. Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure and recorded a lis pendens on Miami‑Dade property.
- Thomas Carlisle purchased the property after the lis pendens was filed and was not originally named in the foreclosure complaint.
- Carlisle moved to intervene; the trial court initially granted intervention but later vacated that interlocutory order and denied intervention before trial.
- After trial, final judgment of foreclosure was entered for U.S. Bank; Carlisle then filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion to vacate the final judgment, which the trial court denied.
- Carlisle appealed the denial of his 1.540(b) motion; U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.
- The Third District considered whether Carlisle fell within the limited non‑party standing recognized in Pearlman v. Pearlman or was required to have been a party (via timely intervention) to seek relief under Rule 1.540(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carlisle) | Defendant's Argument (U.S. Bank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post‑lis pendens purchaser who was not a party has standing under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to seek vacatur of a final judgment | Carlisle relied on Pearlman exception — a non‑party whose rights were directly and injuriously affected by a fraudulently obtained judgment may seek relief under Rule 1.540(b) | Purchasers post‑lis pendens lack such standing; a non‑party must intervene and be a party to obtain 1.540(b) relief unless they fall within the narrow Pearlman exception | Dismissed: Carlisle lacks standing because he purchased post‑lis pendens, did not timely appeal the denial of intervention, and does not fit within Pearlman’s limited exception |
| Whether the Pearlman exception applies to purchasers who acquire title after lis pendens | Carlisle argued Pearlman should allow him to collaterally attack the judgment via 1.540(b) | U.S. Bank argued Pearlman is narrow and applies where the non‑party’s preexisting rights were directly affected; a post‑lis pendens buyer acquired title subject to the pending suit and judgment | Pearlman does not extend to post‑lis pendens purchasers; the court refused to expand Pearlman’s reach |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearlman v. Pearlman, 405 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (recognized narrow exception allowing a non‑party whose preexisting rights were directly injured by a fraudulently obtained judgment to seek relief under Rule 1.540(b))
- SR Acquisitions‑Fla. City, LLC v. San Remo Homes at Fla. City, LLC, 78 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (only a party or a party’s legal representative may seek relief under Rule 1.540(b))
- YHT & Associates, Inc. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 177 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (dismissal for lack of standing where purchaser post‑lis pendens failed to timely appeal denial of intervention)
- Bymel v. Bank of Am., N.A., 159 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (post‑lis pendens purchasers generally are not entitled to intervene in pending foreclosure actions)
- Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (a third‑party purchaser’s title acquired subject to foreclosure is not a legally cognizable interest to defeat the bank’s superior claim)