East Winds Consulting, LLC v. Sky Harbour Condominium Association, Inc.
2D2024-0176
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6thMar 21, 2025Background
- Sky Harbour Condominium Association sued Jo-Anne Bager to foreclose on her condominium unit; Bager was deceased, so an attorney ad litem was appointed for unknown heirs.
- The DeStefanos bought the property at a foreclosure sale, resulting in a surplus of funds; East Winds Consulting intervened to claim the surplus based on agreements with Bager’s heirs.
- The DeStefanos filed a motion (through their counsel, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.) to vacate the final judgment and certificate of sale, arguing lack of service on heirs and mistakes related to the surplus and title.
- The trial court denied the DeStefanos’ motion to vacate and later denied East Winds' motion for attorney’s fees under § 57.105, which allows fees against parties and attorneys for unsupported claims.
- East Winds appealed, arguing it was entitled to sanctions because the DeStefanos, as non-parties, lacked standing to move to vacate and their claims were unsupported by law.
- The appellate court’s majority affirmed denial of fees, but Judge Atkinson dissented, arguing fees should be awarded as counsel’s arguments were legally unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to attorney's fees as sanctions under § 57.105 | East Winds: DeStefanos’ motion to vacate was not supported by fact or law, so fees should be awarded. | DeStefanos/Becker & Poliakoff: There was a good faith basis and precedent for the motion; the lack of a transcript/other procedural issues preclude fees. | Majority: Affirmed denial of fees. Dissent: Fees should be awarded against counsel since the motion to vacate was unsupported by then-existing law. |
| Standing of third-party purchaser to vacate final foreclosure judgment | East Winds: DeStefanos, as nonparties, lacked standing to seek to vacate the judgment. | DeStefanos: Sought relief as purchasers, citing cases suggesting some equitable standing for purchasers. | Dissent: DeStefanos lacked legal grounds to vacate as nonparties; existing law doesn’t support their standing. |
| Legal sufficiency of the DeStefanos’ grounds to vacate the sale/judgment | East Winds: Claims about service, ad litem, and surplus are legally insufficient. | DeStefanos: Relied on alleged service defects and mistakes in the foreclosure process. | Dissent: Legal authority cited by DeStefanos did not support their claims; arguments were unsupported by law. |
| Sufficiency of the record for appellate review without a hearing transcript | East Winds: Legal issues do not require a transcript; record is adequate. | Becker & Poliakoff: Lack of transcript means the record is inadequate, so court cannot review errors. | Dissent: Transcript unnecessary as legal/factual record is clear and undisputed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thriving Invs., LLC v. Chao, 184 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (nonparty purchaser lacks standing to vacate foreclosure judgment)
- Whiteside v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia Cnty., 798 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (one not a party to the case has no standing to request relief)
- Carlisle v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 225 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (only a party or party’s legal representative can seek relief from a judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540)
- Miller v. Stavros, 174 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (quasi-party status for purchasers is limited to defending ownership against claims, not collaterally attacking judgments)
- Sulkowski v. Sulkowski, 561 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (failure to inform oneself about judicial sale requirements is not sufficient grounds to set aside a sale)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (absence of hearing transcript can preclude review, but only if factual findings are relevant)