Toler v. BANK OF AMERICA, NAT. ASS'N
78 So. 3d 699
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bank of America foreclosed on the Tolers' mortgage; Tolers did not answer or defend.
- A summary judgment was granted on May 6, 2010, with a sale date set for June 14.
- The sale occurred as scheduled and Bank of America purchased the property.
- Tolers moved to vacate the sale based on court directives for a longer sale period and conciliation/mediation; the sale was later vacated by the trial court.
- Tolers filed a September 2010 motion to vacate the final judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540; the trial court denied as untimely, and the appeal followed.
- The appellate court concluded the motion was timely but affirmed denial on the merits for failure to allege a colorable basis under Rule 1.540(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 702.07 provides independent relief from foreclosure judgments. | Tolers rely on 702.07 as standalone authority. | Bank argues 702.07 grants power but not independent grounds. | 702.07 does not alone create grounds for relief; must be read with Rule 1.540(b). |
| Whether Rule 1.540(b) grounds were met by Tolers' motion. | Tolers claimed failure to address all potential defenses as a basis for relief. | BOA contends this is not a valid ground under Rule 1.540(b). | Motion failed to present a colorable basis under Rule 1.540(b). |
| Whether Tolers' timely filing could cure the lack of colorable grounds. | Timeliness should permit relief regardless of grounds. | Timeliness alone is insufficient without colorable grounds. | Even if timely, relief requires a colorable basis under Rule 1.540(b). |
| Whether excusable neglect or similar considerations salvage the motion. | Tolers imply excusable neglect due to failure to anticipate defenses. | Even if excusable, they failed to show due diligence or meritorious defenses. | Excusable neglect does not cure the lack of a colorable basis; motion still fails. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying relief. | The motion was timely and should have been granted for relief from judgment. | Discretionary denial was appropriate given lack of colorable basis. | No abuse of discretion on the merits; the motion lacks a colorable basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 968 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (statutory history and Rule 1.540 interplay with 702.07)
- Nobani v. Barcelona Dev. Corp., 655 So.2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (analysis of relief from judgment principles)
- Sun Bank, N.A. v. Stocks, 548 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (prior authority on relief from judgment)