242 So. 3d 461
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2005 Chiu and Green jointly borrowed $504,985.97 from Wachovia for an investment property; the loan went into default and Wells Fargo (successor) sued Chiu on the promissory note in 2015.
- Chiu filed an answer and asserted numerous affirmative defenses including estoppel, statute of limitations, unconscionability, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and others.
- Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment in December 2016 and submitted an affidavit of amounts due in March 2017; Chiu filed opposing memoranda and affidavits in late March 2017.
- A hearing on the summary-judgment motion was set for April 3, 2017, but the trial court sua sponte canceled the hearing and granted final summary judgment for Wells Fargo on April 5, 2017.
- Chiu appealed, arguing the court violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) by ruling without a hearing; the appellate court reviewed de novo and reversed, finding the lack of a hearing was a denial of due process and constituted fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting final summary judgment without conducting a hearing under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) | Chiu argued the court denied his right to notice and an opportunity to be heard by cancelling the scheduled hearing and entering judgment | Wells Fargo argued Chiu failed to preserve the procedural objection by not seeking rehearing or reconsideration below | Reversed: the court held that Rule 1.510(c) contemplates a hearing and ruling without one is denial of due process and fundamental error permitting appellate review |
| Whether the preservation rule foreclosed appellate review of the lack-of-hearing claim | Chiu contended the error was fundamental and could be raised for the first time on appeal | Wells Fargo maintained Chiu waived the complaint by not presenting it below | Held for Chiu: denial of a hearing is fundamental (due process) error and may be raised on appeal |
| Whether appellate court should decide merits of summary-judgment motion | Chiu requested reversal and remand for further proceedings | Wells Fargo implicitly sought affirmance on the merits | Court declined to address merits because procedural reversal (lack of hearing) made merits review premature |
| Remedy for trial-court’s failure to hold hearing | Chiu sought reversal and remand for a proper hearing | Wells Fargo sought affirmance or remand without limitation | Court reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Rule 1.510(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Lezcano, 22 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (trial court must conduct hearing on summary-judgment motion; failure denies due process)
- Greene v. Seigle, 745 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (granting summary judgment without hearing requires reversal)
- Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 609 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (Rule 1.510(c) does not give trial court discretion to omit a hearing)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc., 621 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (ruling without hearing on summary judgment warrants reversal)
- Tropical Glass & Const. Co. v. Gitlin, 13 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)