Mathews v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
139 So. 3d 498
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- U.S. Bank obtained a final judgment foreclosing W. Robert and Lura B. Mathews’ mortgage; Colonial Bank (later succeeded by BB & T) held a recorded second mortgage and was named as a defendant.
- The property was sold at foreclosure; the clerk paid U.S. Bank the full judgment amount and retained $124,369.43 as surplus in the court registry.
- The clerk’s certificate of disbursements included the statutorily required notice stating any claimant must file a claim with the clerk within 60 days after the sale.
- The Mathewses filed a claim for the surplus about seven months after the sale; BB & T filed its claim just days before a scheduled hearing, more than 60 days after the sale.
- The trial court awarded the entire surplus to BB & T, reasoning BB & T had asserted its claim in its answer and affirmative defenses filed before the sale.
- The appellate court reviewed whether BB & T’s pre-sale pleadings satisfied the statutory requirement to file a claim with the clerk within 60 days after the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mathews) | Defendant's Argument (BB & T) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subordinate lienholder must file a claim with the clerk within 60 days after the foreclosure sale to preserve a right to surplus funds | The statutory 60-day filing requirement is mandatory; BB & T failed to timely file and thus cannot recover surplus | Pre-sale pleadings (answer/affirmative defenses) asserted BB & T’s entitlement and should satisfy the claim requirement | Held for Mathews: the statute requires filing a claim with the clerk within 60 days after sale; pre-sale pleadings do not satisfy it |
| Whether the trial court correctly relied on pre-2006 precedent (Citibank) to excuse the 60-day filing | The 60-day requirement was added in 2006 and is controlling; Citibank pre-dated the amendment and is inapplicable | Citibank supports treating pre-existing pleadings as adequate notice of claim | Held: Citibank is inapplicable because it predates the 2006 amendment imposing the 60-day clerk-claim requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2012) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Gulf Atl. Office Props., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 133 So.3d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (plain meaning guides statutory construction)
- Hess v. Walton, 898 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (use of plain-meaning rule)
- Citibank v. PNC Mortg. Corp. of Am., 718 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (precedent discussed but inapplicable post-2006 amendment)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (legislative history may inform ambiguity)