174 So. 3d 612
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Citibank obtained a final judgment of foreclosure in March 2013 after the borrower defaulted; a sale was scheduled for July 2013.
- Prior owners had quitclaimed the property to Diana Diaz and Luis Garcia before the foreclosure; Diaz and Garcia were the record fee simple owners when the foreclosure complaint was filed.
- Diaz and Garcia were not named as defendants in the foreclosure and therefore their interests were not foreclosed; Diaz filed a separate quiet-title action and moved to cancel the sale.
- Citibank learned of the record title owners in June 2013 but did not move to vacate the foreclosure judgment until October 2014.
- The trial court denied Citibank’s motion to vacate the final judgment without explanation; Citibank appealed the denial under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final foreclosure judgment is void for failure to join fee simple owner | Judgment valid; delay in moving to vacate should bar relief | Judgment void because fee simple owners (Diaz/Garcia) were indispensable and not joined | Judgment is void for failing to join indispensable fee simple owners; trial court must vacate |
| Whether Citibank’s delay in seeking vacatur bars relief | Delay should not prevent vacatur of a void judgment | Delay makes motion untimely and prejudicial | Delay is legally insignificant as a void judgment may be vacated within a "reasonable time," and passage of time does not cure voidness |
| Whether non-party’s separate quiet-title action precluded vacatur motion without intervention | Citibank can move to vacate despite Diaz not intervening | Diaz argued Citibank’s motion was untimely and she did not need to intervene | Citibank entitled to vacatur; Diaz’s non-intervention does not validate the void judgment |
| Standard of review for motion to vacate when judgment is void | Abuse of discretion applies generally | Same | When a judgment is void, the trial court has no discretion and must vacate |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. Bankers Trust Co. of California, N.A., 895 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (foreclosure is void if fee simple owner not joined; sale cannot transfer title)
- Oakland Props. Corp. v. Hogan, 117 So. 846 (Fla. 1928) (legal title holder is an indispensable party to foreclosure)
- Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Palm Beaches v. Wright, 452 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (reiterating indispensability of fee simple owner in foreclosure)
- Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (court must vacate void judgments; no discretion)
- Kirchoff v. Jenne, 819 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (delay in seeking vacatur of a void judgment generally not legally significant)
- M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (passage of time cannot validate a judgment that was void from the start)
- Jordan v. Sayre, 3 So. 329 (Fla. 1888) (historic principle that a foreclosure without the legal title holder before the court cannot transfer title)