Pino v. Bank of New York
121 So. 3d 23
| Fla. | 2013Background
- BNY Mellon filed a mortgage foreclosure action against Pino; Pino defaulted.
- Original complaint lacked proper evidence of ownership/notice of assignment; amended complaint added documents showing assignment to BNY Mellon.
- BNY Mellon moved for sanctions; Pino alleged the amended filing fraudulently backdated the assignment.
- BNY Mellon served a March 9, 2009, notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 1.420(a)(1).
- BNY Mellon later refiled the same foreclosure action; Pino moved under Rule 1.540(b) to strike the dismissal and dismiss with prejudice as a fraud-on-the-court sanction.
- The Fourth District affirmed; questions were certified to the Florida Supreme Court about authority to reinstate after a voluntary dismissal when no affirmative relief was obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraud on the court justifies reinstating a voluntary dismissal | Pino argues fraud on the court allows reinstatement and sanctions | BNY Mellon argues no relief unless affirmative relief obtained; no inherent authority to strike dismissal | No; reinstatement requires affirmative relief obtained by plaintiff |
| Whether Rule 1.540(b) can relive a party from a voluntary dismissal when no affirmative relief occurred | Pino contends Rule 1.540(b) provides relief even without affirmative relief | BNY Mellon contends no relief under Rule 1.540(b) absent adverse impact from dismissal | No; Rule 1.540(b) requires adverse impact from the challenged proceeding, which was absent here |
| Whether the trial court has inherent authority to strike a voluntary dismissal for fraud on the court | Pino argues inherent authority to protect judicial integrity | BNY Mellon argues no inherent authority to strike a notice of dismissal when no affirmative relief was obtained | No; inherent authority does not permit striking the dismissal in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Select Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Wong, 367 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (narrow fraud-on-the-court exception when plaintiff obtains affirmative relief)
- Miller v. Fortune Insurance Co., 484 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1986) (rule 1.540(b) relief from final judgment includes voluntary dismissals)
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1978) (voluntary dismissals deprive court of jurisdiction; finality principle)
- Bevan v. D’Alessandro, 395 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (affirms Select Builders distinction when no affirmative relief obtained)
- Service Experts, LLC v. Northside Air Conditioning & Electrical Service, Inc., 56 So.3d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (fraud-on-the-court considerations limited; Select Builders distinguished)
- Romar Int’l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So.2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (fraud-on-the-court exception acknowledged but not applied here)
- Coney v. State, 995 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (sanction authority after voluntary dismissal referenced in related contexts)