U.S. Bank, N.A. v. JAK Mortgage, LLC
224 So. 3d 268
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Arrow (junior lienholder) obtained foreclosure and JAK Mortgage (successor to Arrow) acquired title at a 2010 sale; U.S. Bank held a superior mortgage.
- U.S. Bank filed its own foreclosure action and lis pendens in 2009 and obtained a final foreclosure judgment on February 8, 2013, expressly foreclosing subordinate interests.
- JAK Mortgage filed a quiet-title action in 2012 naming U.S. Bank; service on U.S. Bank was attempted via the Florida Secretary of State.
- The trial court’s February 8, 2013 final judgment dismissed the case as to parties not listed in that judgment; that dismissal included U.S. Bank (though U.S. Bank was not referenced elsewhere).
- Months later JAK paid a $50 “reopen case fee,” the court entered an order reopening the case, and on June 14, 2013 entered a default final judgment quieting title as to U.S. Bank.
- U.S. Bank moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 to vacate the June 14 judgment; the trial court denied the motion and U.S. Bank appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a post-dismissal default judgment against U.S. Bank after the February 8, 2013 judgment dismissed U.S. Bank | JAK: Reopening the case (paying the fee and court order) reinstated proceedings and permitted entry of default judgment | U.S. Bank: February 8 dismissal divested court of jurisdiction; post-dismissal orders are void unless dismissal was vacated | Court: Dismissal divested jurisdiction; reopening did not revest jurisdiction; post-dismissal orders/judgment are nullities — reversal and vacatur granted |
| Whether substituted service on the Florida Secretary of State and resulting default complied with due process | JAK: Service via Secretary of State was proper for nonresident corporation | U.S. Bank: Service was insufficient and deprived U.S. Bank of due process (no notice) | Court: Did not decide on service/due-process because jurisdictional defect resolved the appeal (issues reserved) |
| Whether a junior lienholder may quiet title against a superior lienholder via this procedure | JAK: Proceeding sought to quiet title and challenge lis pendens’ validity | U.S. Bank: Quiet-title action improperly attempted to nullify superior lienholder’s rights | Court: Did not reach merits (jurisdictional defect dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978) (dismissal divests court of jurisdiction)
- Century Elevator Co. v. Spinos, 652 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (dismissal typically divests court of jurisdiction, including to entertain reinstatement)
- Brody v. Broward Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 137 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (court cannot re-open case after final judgment divests jurisdiction)
- Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Wellenreiter, 475 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (once jurisdiction is lost, trial court lacks authority to re-open)
- Herbits v. City of Miami, 197 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (post-dismissal orders affecting dismissed party are void)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bevans, 138 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (background principle regarding junior vs. superior lienholder procedure)
- Carnival Corp. v. Sargeant, 690 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (procedure for amending complaints after dismissal)