Epstein v. Bank of America, National Ass'n
162 So. 3d 159
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Homeowner (Epstein) defaulted; mortgage contained an incorrect legal description. Bank sued and obtained final summary judgment of foreclosure in Dec 2009 using that incorrect description. Foreclosure sale and certificate of title (with same incorrect description) followed in 2010.
- Bank discovered the error in Oct 2010 but did not move to vacate until Sept 2012 (first motion) and again in Jan 2013 (second motion). The first motion was denied without prejudice; the second asserted relief under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1) and (b)(4).
- Bank argued the judgment was void due to lack of joinder of the true owner of the property described in the incorrect legal description, so the one-year rule did not bar relief.
- Homeowner responded that the motion was time-barred because the judgment was only voidable (not void) and Rule 1.540(b)(1) requires attack within one year.
- Trial court granted the bank’s second motion. The Fourth District reversed, concluding the judgment was voidable (not void) and the bank’s Rule 1.540(b) motion was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the foreclosure judgment is void (attackable at any time) or merely voidable (one-year limit) | Bank: judgment void because the owner of the property described in the judgment wasn’t made a party, violating due process | Homeowner: judgment was entered with subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; error in legal description makes judgment voidable, not void | Court: judgment was voidable, not void; 1.540(b) one-year deadline applies and bank’s motion was time-barred |
| Whether a party can assert due-process defects on behalf of an unjoined third-party owner | Bank: due-process rights of the owner of the described property were violated, rendering the judgment void | Homeowner: constitutional rights are personal; unjoined owner didn’t challenge the judgment here | Court: due-process challenge cannot be asserted vicariously; bank lacked standing to raise nonparty’s constitutional right |
| Whether courts may reform legal descriptions after final judgment and sale | Bank: sought relief to amend/reform description to clear title | Homeowner: foreclosure process must start anew if final judgment carried an incorrect description into deed/sale | Court: agreeing with Lucas, a mistake in legal description carried into judgment/sale cannot be reformed post-judgment; new foreclosure process is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard of review for Rule 1.540(b) motion)
- Condo. Ass’n of La Mer Estates, Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 137 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (distinguishing void vs. voidable judgments under Rule 1.540(b))
- Miller v. Preefer, 1 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (defining void vs. voidable judgments; jurisdictional defects render judgments void)
- Community Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wright, 452 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (owner of fee simple is an indispensable party in foreclosure; failure to join can render a judgment void)
- Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cnty., 705 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (once mistaken legal description is carried into final judgment and deed, the court cannot reform the deed or judgment; foreclosure must be recommenced)
- Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 968 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (errors of law/fact do not make judgments void where jurisdiction exists)