Congress Park Office Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
105 So. 3d 602
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Borrowers defaulted on a note and mortgage originally held by Sun American Bank; FDIC in receivership later assigned the note/mortgage to First-Citizens and accelerated/default notice issued in 2010.
- First-Citizens sued on the notes, foreclosed the mortgage, and sought related relief in September 2010; borrowers answered with defenses including failure of condition precedent and unclean hands, among others.
- Borrowers sought discovery (production of documents and interrogatories) starting March 2011; discovery disputes led to protective orders and a delay in summary judgment proceedings.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in October 2011, resulting in a final foreclosure; borrowers appealed on grounds that discovery was pending and that genuine issues of material fact existed.
- The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo and ultimately affirms, holding that waivers and discovery lapses, not genuine issues of material fact, justified the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of lack of standing and fraud defenses barred summary judgment | Borrowers argue standing and fraud defenses were raised and should preclude summary judgment | Bank contends these defenses were not properly pled and thus waived | Waived; defenses not properly pleaded and discovery related to them was unnecessary |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment while discovery was pending | Borrowers claim unresolved discovery would show genuine issues | Bank argues borrowers were dilatory and discovery delays did not create genuine issues of fact | No abuse; discovery delays did not create genuine issues of material fact and movant was entitled to judgment |
| Whether unclean hands defense could defeat summary judgment | Borrowers rely on alleged inequitable conduct by lender | Unclean hands not shown; conduct alleged was not egregious enough | Insufficient to defeat summary judgment; unclean hands not established by the record |
| Whether borrowers acted diligently in pursuing discovery | Borrowers sought discovery but were delayed by protective orders | Bank asserts borrowers were dilatory and used discovery as delay | Borrowers failed to act diligently; delay supported leaving summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Jones, 77 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgments de novo)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) (summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
- Knight Energy Servs., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 660 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
- Latour Auto Sales, Inc. v. Stromberg-Carlson Leasing Corp., 335 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (burden on opposing party to show genuine issues of fact)
- Osorto v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 88 So.3d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (discovery and summary judgment interplay; diligent pursuit required)