Mullne v. Sea-Tech Construction, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6043
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the defendant and his spouse: Count I for breach of contract against the wife, and Count II to foreclose a construction lien against both spouses.
- Default final judgment entered February 2010 against both defendants; the judgment awarded damages for the contract against both, though the breach count targeted only the wife and the foreclosure count was not mentioned in the judgment.
- In August 2010, plaintiff garnished the defendants’ bank accounts; defendants moved to quash service, vacate the default, and dissolve the garnishment, which the trial court denied.
- Defendant argued the default judgment is void because the complaint failed to state a breach of contract claim against him and because the foreclosure count was an ambush tactic; plaintiff contends the complaint pled two causes and provided notice.
- The court held the judgment void for exceeding the scope of the pleadings and subject-matter jurisdiction, reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate related costs/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the default judgment void for lack of personal liability under the complaint and §713.12? | Plaintiff argues the complaint pled a contract and a foreclosure claim; the trial court had jurisdiction. | Meadows/defendant contends the judgment imposed personal liability not requested by the complaint. | Yes; the judgment was void for impermissible personal liability beyond the pleadings. |
| Should the court have vacated the default despite void judgment rules? | Green Solutions: excusable neglect not applicable if void. | Failure to demonstrate excusable neglect and due diligence should not bar relief. | Yes; void judgments require reversal without applying usual vacatur criteria. |
| Does §713.12 render the non-contracting spouse personally liable? | Liability could attach via statute to the property; personal liability not intended. | Statute reaches only the non-contracting spouse’s interest in the property. | No personal liability; liability limited to the spouse’s interest in the property. |
| Was there ambush or improper notice regarding the foreclosure count? | Complaint referenced Chapter 713; proper notice given. | Lack of explicit subsection and service issues show ambush. | Court found issues with notice and upheld void judgment on jurisdictional grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Stinson-Head, Inc., 504 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (default judgment limitations; admissions in pleadings)
- Halpem v. Houser, 949 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (vacating default: excusable neglect, meritorious defense, due diligence)
- Green Solutions Int’l, Inc. v. Gilligan, 807 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (void if judgment exceeds pleadings; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Fine v. Fine, 400 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (jurisdiction limited to pleadings; jurisdictional defects render judgment void)
- Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 968 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (trial court lack of subject-matter jurisdiction makes judgment void)
- Meadows S. Constr. Co. v. Pezzaniti, 108 So.2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (§713.12 reaches property improvements; no personal liability on non-contracting spouse)