Lauren J. Schindler v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
190 So. 3d 102
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Bank sent a default/acceleration letter to Lauren Schindler and filed a foreclosure complaint based on that default.
- The trial court dismissed the first foreclosure action after Bank failed to timely amend and verify the complaint; the court entered an order under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) and gave Bank notice that failure to amend would result in dismissal.
- The dismissal order did not state "with prejudice," but invoked rule 1.420(b) and did not rely on jurisdiction, venue, or indispensable-party defects.
- Bank later filed a second foreclosure complaint alleging the same default date and breach as in the first action.
- Schindler asserted the prior 1.420(b) dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits (bar under res judicata), and thus Bank could not rely on the same default in the second suit.
- The trial court treated the earlier dismissal as without prejudice and entered final judgment for Bank; the Fourth District reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bank) | Defendant's Argument (Schindler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) that does not state "with prejudice" is nevertheless an adjudication on the merits | Dismissal was without prejudice; absence of the words "with prejudice" means Bank could refile | The 1.420(b) dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits (dismissal with prejudice) because the order did not invoke an exception and gave notice of consequences | Dismissal under rule 1.420(b) was an adjudication on the merits (with prejudice) where the order did not specify otherwise and gave adequate notice |
| Whether the trial court erred by entering foreclosure on the same default after the prior adjudication | Refiling allowed; prior dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits | Refiling is barred by res judicata because the second action relied on the same breach previously adjudicated | Court reversed: res judicata bars Bank from relitigating same default; foreclosure on that default must be dismissed |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice required express written finding of willful noncompliance | Bank argued procedure insufficient to conclude dismissal was with prejudice | Schindler argued the dismissal order contained an express finding that Bank "chose not to timely file an amended complaint" (satisfying willfulness requirement) | Court found the order contained an express finding of willful noncompliance, supporting dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether Bank had adequate notice that failure to amend would result in dismissal with prejudice | Bank contended it lacked specific notice that the consequence would be dismissal with prejudice | Schindler pointed to the court's order and stipulation warning that failure to amend would result in dismissal under rule 1.420(b) without further motion | Court held Bank received adequate notice consistent with precedent requiring notice before dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. St. Vil, 714 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA) (describing that dismissal adjudications are equivalent to dismissal with prejudice)
- Townsend v. Feinberg, 659 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA) (dismissing with prejudice is drastic; requires caution)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Montgomery Ward, 538 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA) (trial court may dismiss for egregious violation of an order)
- Taylor v. City of Lake Worth, 125 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA) (reversal where order lacked express written finding of willful noncompliance for 1.420(b) dismissal)
- Cummings v. Warren Henry Motors, Inc., 648 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA) (must make express written finding of willful or deliberate refusal before dismissing as sanction)
- First Union Nat’l Bank v. Hartle, 579 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA) (court must notify party that failure to comply with leave to amend will result in dismissal)
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA) (order granting leave to amend may condition dismissal on failure to amend without further notice)
- Singleton v. Greymar Assocs., 840 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA) (res judicata bars relitigation of same mortgage breach; subsequent foreclosure allowed only for new and different breach)