Reyes v. Bac Home Loans Servicing L.P.
226 So. 3d 354
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2017Background
- Reyes, an elderly homeowner, refinanced her Tampa home in 2007; payments increased substantially.
- BAC filed foreclosure in January 2010, alleging last payment September 2009.
- Reyes initially filed an answer with 11 affirmative defenses after vacating a default; the trial court later struck eight defenses without prejudice and gave leave to amend.
- Reyes did not refile an amended answer within the 30‑day period; discovery and mediation followed.
- Two weeks before a May 19, 2015 summary‑judgment hearing, Reyes moved to amend her answer and affirmative defenses, asserting counsel’s oversight and submitting supporting materials; the trial court denied the motion, granted summary judgment for BAC, and entered foreclosure.
- On rehearing, Reyes argued excusable neglect and lack of prejudice; the trial court reaffirmed denial. The Second District reversed, finding abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend and vacating the foreclosure judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend answer shortly before summary‑judgment hearing | Amend should be allowed; counsel’s oversight was excusable, defenses replead consistent with earlier pleadings, and BAC would not be prejudiced | Denial proper due to delay and purported lack of excusable neglect; timing was "last minute" and prejudicial to summary‑judgment process | Reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion because plaintiff showed no abuse of privilege, no established prejudice, and no clear futility |
| Whether summary judgment should stand when amendment was denied | Summary judgment premature if plaintiff could amend viable defenses; denial of leave tainted grant of summary judgment | Summary judgment proper because plaintiff failed to timely preserve defenses and failed to show excusable neglect | Because denial of leave to amend was erroneous, grant of summary judgment was also reversed |
| Whether absence of transcript prevents appellate review of denial of motion to amend | Record (filings and rehearing transcript recap) sufficiently shows error apparent on face | Appellee argued absence of transcript required affirmance | Court may review for facial error despite missing hearing transcript; record here sufficed to decide appeal |
| Whether amendment would have been futile (predatory lending and other defenses) | Proposed amended defenses added specificity and were not refuted on the record; doubts resolved in favor of amendment | Argued defenses were untimely and not properly pleaded earlier | Court declined to find futility on this record; futility not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Fernandes, 149 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (appellate review for error apparent despite missing transcript)
- Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (absence of transcript not fatal when record suffices)
- Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 65 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (standards for denying leave to amend)
- S. Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 56 So. 3d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (liberal policy favoring amendments)
- RV‑7 Prop., Inc. v. Stefani De La O, Inc., 187 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (timing alone is not sufficient to show prejudice)
- Crown v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (post‑motion for summary judgment amendment not necessarily prejudicial)
- Carib Ocean Shipping, Inc. v. Armas, 854 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (no prejudice where new defense raised shortly before trial)