Indymac Federal Bank FSB v. Hagan
104 So. 3d 1232
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bank foreclosed on Hagans' property for default on a 484,000 loan secured by note and mortgage.
- Final judgment of foreclosure was entered with an order for public sale; purchaser to file a certificate of title.
- Bank later purchased the property at foreclosure sale (Feb. 23, 2011); clerk issued certificate of sale (Mar. 2, 2011).
- Hagans filed an objection to the foreclosure sale and a motion to vacate the final judgment (Mar. 4, 2011) alleging intrinsic fraud by the Bank.
- Trial court delayed ruling pending an evidentiary hearing; Bank sought issuance of a certificate of title, which was denied, prompting appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hagans' objection to the sale was facially sufficient | Hagans argued conduct at or related to the sale was irregular due to fraud. | Bank contends the objection was facially deficient as it did not challenge sale conduct. | Objection facially deficient; did not challenge sale conduct. |
| Whether Hagans' motion to vacate the final judgment was time-barred | Hagans asserted intrinsic fraud grounds within an appropriate time frame. | Bank argued Rule 1.540(b) time limit expired for intrinsic fraud within one year of judgment. | Motion time-barred; not timely filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Emanuel v. Bankers Trust Co., N.A., 655 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (objections focus on sale conduct)
- CCC Props., Inc. v. Kane, 582 So.2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (objections refer to conduct of the sale)
- Mody v. Cal. Fed. Bank, 747 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (requirement to show irregularity in the sale)
- Parker v. Parker, 950 So.2d 388 (Fla. 2007) (intrinsic fraud relief within a year)
- Indian River Farms v. YBF Partners, 111 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (objections to sale must allege sale irregularities)
- City of St. Petersburg v. Remia, 41 So.3d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (mandatory nature of certificate of title issuance)
- Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So.2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (substance over form in motion labeling)
- Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (look to content, not label, of motions)