Residential Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Winterlakes Property Owners Association, Inc., etc., William Aponte
169 So. 3d 253
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Winterlakes POA obtained a 2013 foreclosure judgment against homeowner William Aponte for unpaid assessments and scheduled a sale for Oct. 30, 2013.
- Residential Mortgage Servicing Corp. (appellant) was the successful bidder at the clerk-run foreclosure sale; the clerk issued a certificate of sale.
- A non-party (FST) later claimed a private purchase/redemption occurred Oct. 29, 2013, and a quitclaim deed was produced purporting to assign the right of redemption to FST.
- Senior Judge George Shahood held a hearing, denied FST’s late challenge, and entered an order directing issuance of a certificate of title to the appellant.
- About two weeks later, Senior Judge James Midelis entered an order vacating Judge Shahood’s certificate-of-title order and directing return of the appellant’s purchase funds, asserting a redemption occurred on Oct. 29.
- The record contained no clear evidence that redemption was timely completed, and the appellant received no notice or hearing before Judge Midelis vacated the prior order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foreclosure sale and certificate of title may be set aside without notice to the purchaser | POA (or movant) argued sale should be set aside because redemption/ satisfaction occurred prior to sale | Appellant argued sale and certificate of title were valid and could not be vacated without notice and an opportunity to be heard | Court held purchaser was entitled to notice and hearing; vacatur without notice violated due process and was reversed |
| Whether record established a timely exercise of redemption sufficient to set aside the sale | FST/homeowner claimed redemption occurred Oct. 29 by deed/assignment and payment | Appellant disputed adequacy and timing of any redemption; record lacked proof | Court found record did not establish redemption and raised due-process concerns; reversal ordered |
| Standard of review for vacating a foreclosure sale | N/A | N/A | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review for vacatur but reviewed due-process claim de novo |
| Whether successor judge could vacate predecessor’s order without notifying affected third-party purchaser | Movant implicitly relied on court authority to correct/undo prior order | Appellant asserted successor judge lacked power to vacate without notice and hearing for affected purchaser | Court held successor judge erred by vacating prior order absent notice and opportunity to be heard; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alberts v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 673 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (standard of review for orders setting aside foreclosure sales)
- J.J.K. Int’l, Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (standard for reviewing motions for rehearing)
- Skelton v. Lyons, 157 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (third-party purchaser has due-process right to notice and hearing before sale vacatur)
- VOSR Indus., Inc. v. Martin Props., Inc., 919 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (right of redemption may be assigned)
- CCC Props., Inc. v. Kane, 582 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (timely satisfaction of judgment can justify setting aside a sale)
- Avi-Isaac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 59 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (purchaser at foreclosure sale entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard on motion to vacate sale)