212 So. 3d 1065
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Crown Financial filed a mortgage foreclosure in 2013 claiming documents (Mortgage and Profit Sharing Agreement) entitled it to foreclose and recover roughly $419k; dispute centered on whether secured advances were capped at $300,000 by the Profit Sharing Agreement or higher under the Mortgage’s future-advances clause.
- At the bench trial Crown’s representative (Chad Tribe) testified there was no file document memorializing any increase in the $300,000 cap and that he reviewed records the day before trial.
- The trial court awarded approximately $419k; this Court reversed on appeal, holding the Profit Sharing Agreement controlled and capped secured advances at $300,000, and remanded for recalculation. Cleveland v. Crown Fin., LLC, 183 So. 3d 1206.
- After remand, Crown moved for a new trial / relief from judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540, asserting newly discovered evidence: a signed September 2010 “Agreement for Additional Advance” increasing the cap to $500,000, which Crown said had been misplaced and later located with the broker.
- The trial court granted a new trial, finding the agreement was newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with due diligence; the Clevelands appealed.
- The First District reversed, holding Crown did not meet its burden to show due diligence and that the document was merely overlooked/forgotten rather than truly undiscoverable; reopening the case would improperly give Crown a second chance after an unsuccessful litigation strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crown) | Defendant's Argument (Clevelands) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-trial Agreement for Additional Advance is "newly discovered evidence" under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) / 1.530 | The agreement was lost/misplaced and later found with the broker; it was critical and undiscoverable despite reasonable efforts, so it warrants relief (new trial or relief from judgment). | The agreement was merely forgotten/overlooked and Crown failed to show it exercised due diligence; thus it is not newly discovered evidence and relief is improper. | Reversed: Crown failed to show due diligence; the document was not newly discovered evidence and the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. Crown Fin., LLC, 183 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (prior appellate mandate holding Profit Sharing Agreement capped advances at $300,000)
- Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (discussing balance between finality and reopening judgments)
- Hooks v. Quaintance, 71 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (rule 1.540(b) relief based on newly discovered evidence is disfavored and requires due diligence)
- Brown v. McMillian, 737 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (movant must show vigilance and establish exercise of due diligence for newly discovered evidence claims)
- Mistretta v. Mistretta, 31 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (rehearing/new trial for newly discovered evidence requires discovery after trial and due diligence before trial)
- Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A., 118 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (courts generally refuse to reopen cases to give parties a second chance when proof was available but not presented)
- Gulf Eagle, LLC v. Park E. Dev., Ltd., 196 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reopening a case may be proper where no undue prejudice and reopening serves justice; distinguished on facts)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002) (tipsy-coachman doctrine permitting affirmation for any valid basis in the record)