Garcia v. Christiana Trust
208 So. 3d 176
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Eduardo and Bertha Garcia held property as tenants by the entirety; BankUnited sued to foreclose a mortgage allegedly signed by both.
- At bench trial the court found Eduardo’s signature forged by Bertha and entered a Final Judgment of Foreclosure (Feb 28, 2013) ordering sale of only Bertha’s interest, expressly excluding Eduardo’s interest.
- Public sale notice inaccurately described the sale as of the entire fee; Rocketrider Pictures purchased at the sale and later objected, claiming the purchase conveyed nothing because the property was held by entireties.
- This Court (Rocketrider appeal) vacated the post-foreclosure sale, ordered return of Rocketrider’s bid, and—erroneously, the panel wrote—purported to reverse the Final Judgment of Foreclosure (Eduardo was not a party to that appeal). Mandate issued.
- Christiana Trust (successor to BankUnited) then sought leave to amend to add counts; the trial court relied on the Rocketrider opinion language to permit amendment. Eduardo petitioned to enforce the prior mandate or for certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rocketrider appeal reversed or reopened the 2013 Final Judgment as to Eduardo | Rocketrider opinion’s language reversed the Final Judgment, so it could be reopened | Final Judgment was not appealed by Eduardo and remained final; Rocketrider appeal concerned only the sale | Court held the Final Judgment was final and not affected by Rocketrider; language purporting to reverse it had no legal effect |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to permit amendment after mandate | Eduardo argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to reopen final foreclosure as to him | Trial court relied on appellate language to grant leave to amend | Court granted certiorari, quashed the order granting leave to amend, and found trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the final judgment |
| Whether purchaser (Rocketrider) received title from a sale of an entireties interest | Rocketrider argued its purchase was for the entire fee and was void given entireties ownership | Bank argued sale proceeded under Final Judgment terms | This Court’s prior opinion vacated the sale and ordered return of bid funds (separate appeal) but did not affect final judgment between Eduardo and Bank |
| Whether Rule 1.540 or other relief could reopen Final Judgment | Bank/Trust did not invoke Rule 1.540; no basis asserted to relieve finality | Eduardo argued finality bars reopening absent rule 1.540 relief | Court noted Rule 1.540 is the narrow exception and was not invoked or applicable; finality stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Rocketrider Pictures, LLC v. BankUnited, 138 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (vacating post-foreclosure sale and ordering return of purchaser’s bid; opinion mistakenly referenced reversal of final judgment)
- Makar v. Inv'rs Real Estate Mgmt., 553 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (a judgment is a final adjudication of the merits)
- Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1965) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to act after time/manner limits for review have passed)
- Denny v. Denny, 334 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (final judgment unappealed within time cannot later be reviewed by trial or appellate court)
- Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Milne, 98 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trial court loses jurisdiction after entry of a final decree and expiration of post-judgment relief period)
- Harbor Bay Condominiums, Inc. v. Basabe, 856 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (same principle regarding loss of jurisdiction after finality)
- Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986) (Rule 1.540 provides narrow exception to finality; not invoked here)