Hanna-Mack v. Bank of America, N.A.
218 So. 3d 971
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Arleen Hanna-Mack sued Bank of America alleging trespass, illegal lockout, conversion of personal property, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, negligence, and punitive damages related to her residence.
- Bank moved to dismiss all seven counts; the trial court entered an initial dismissal without prejudice and later entered an amended final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice after Hanna-Mack did not file an amended complaint within 36 days.
- The trial court noted Hanna-Mack had “failed to appear after proper notice”; Hanna-Mack asserted the hearing was noticed by the Bank (not the court) and filed a timely motion for rehearing asserting exigent circumstances that prevented attendance.
- Hanna-Mack’s rehearing motion was denied and she appealed the dismissal with prejudice; she argued the sanction was improper and she should have been allowed to amend.
- The appellate court reviewed the complaint de novo (considering only the four corners), assumed allegations true, and reviewed the denial of relief from the dismissal for abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court concluded several counts were legally sufficient at the pleading stage (e.g., allegations of unauthorized entry and conversion) and reversed and remanded, permitting Hanna-Mack to amend and directing future dismissals to specify insufficient counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper after Hanna‑Mack failed to amend within 36 days | Denial was improper; she timely moved for rehearing and was entitled to amend; dismissal with prejudice is an excessive sanction | Failure to timely amend justified dismissal | Reversed: dismissal with prejudice was improper; remand to allow amendment |
| Whether the pleadings were legally sufficient under de novo review | Complaint sufficiently alleges unauthorized entry and conversion to survive dismissal | Bank argued foreclosure authorized entry and justified dismissal | Court: on four‑corners review allegations of unauthorized entry and conversion are legally sufficient at this stage |
| Whether failure to provide hearing transcripts defeats appellate review | Hanna‑Mack implied errors apparent without transcript | Bank argued lack of transcript is fatal | Court: transcript not required where errors are apparent on face of record; appellate review permitted |
| Whether pro se procedural deficiencies justify harsher treatment | Pro se status and timely rehearing motion merit leniency; substance controls over form | Bank invoked procedural rules to oppose relief | Court: pro se pleadings construed liberally; substance over form; timely motion warranted consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gogoleva v. Soffer, 187 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (standard for de novo review of pleadings)
- Kruger v. Kruger, 124 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (failure to amend after first dismissal without prejudice does not alone support dismissal with prejudice absent express order conditions)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (transcript absence generally limits review but not where errors are apparent on face of record)
- Hill v. Calderin, 47 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (appellate review may proceed when record shows apparent errors)
- Montesinos v. State, 143 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Suarez v. Orta, 176 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (focus on substance over form for mis‑titled pro se motions)
- Kidwell v. Kidwell, 181 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (procedural latitude afforded to pro se litigants)
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993) (sanctions analysis; referenced though court did not reach sanction issue)