Condominium Ass'n of La Mer Estates v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
137 So. 3d 396
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Trial court vacated a default final judgment a year and a half after entry on grounds the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
- The case involves a condominium association foreclosing its lien and a subsequent quiet-title suit against the Bank of New York Mellon, which had acquired the mortgage.
- Association obtained a foreclosure judgment and later a final judgment quieting title against the bank after several defaults and re-service of process.
- Bank moved—over a year after the final quiet-title judgment—to vacate under Rule 1.540(b) arguing the judgment was void because the complaint did not state a cognizable cause of action.
- Trial court vacated the judgment as void for failure to state a cause of action; association appealed arguing the judgment was voidable, not void.
- The court held that the default judgment based on a defective complaint is voidable, receded from prior caselaw, and remanded for reinstatement of the final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a default judgment based on a complaint failing to state a cause of action is void or voidable | Association argued the judgment is void. | Bank argued the judgment is voidable, not void. | Voidable judgment |
| Whether Rule 1.540(b)(4) timing applies to void judgments or voidable judgments in this context | Void judgments can be attacked at any time. | Since the judgment is voidable, timely motion rules apply. | Timeliness governs voidable judgments; motion untimely |
| Disposition of the quiet-title judgment given the voidable status | Reversal not warranted if judgment voidable; argue for reinstatement. | Vacate due to voidness should stand if valid. | Reversed and remanded for reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Becerra v. Equity Imps., Inc., 551 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (default judgment should be set aside where complaint on its face fails to state a cause of action)
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926) (distinguishes void vs. voidable judgments when court has jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Coleman v. Williams, 8 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1941) (final judgment entered without cognizable cause is voidable, not void)
- Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 968 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (voidable judgment may be attacked by specified methods; not void under 1.540(b)(4))
- Rhodes v. O. Turner & Co., 117 So.3d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (default judgment based on complaint failing to state a cause of action treated as void)
- Neuteleers v. Patio Homeowners Ass’n, 114 So.3d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (recognizes voidness of certain default judgments built on defective pleadings)
- Lee & Sakahara Assocs., ALA, Inc. v. Boykin Mgmt. Co., 678 So.2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (default judgments based on defective pleadings analyzed under void/voidable framework)
- M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Reserve Developers, LLP, 769 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (void judgments may be attacked at any time; context prior to modern rules)
- Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1990) (illustrates void judgment definition under prior Florida law)
- Southeast Land Developers, Inc. v. All Florida Site & Utilities, Inc., 28 So.3d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (conflicted with approach recognizing void judgments in some contexts)
- Moynet v. Courtois, 8 So.3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (confirms conflict with void/not void determinations for certain judgments)