U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57

Background

U.S. Bank obtained summary judgment and a final foreclosure judgment in 2009; the court also ordered mediation the same day. Parties did not object to mediation being ordered.
Mediation was rescheduled after U.S. Bank failed to appear; parties allegedly agreed to mortgage payments and to pursue HAMP, but no written mediated agreement was filed.
Homeowner Elizabeth Anthony-Irish sent ex parte letters in 2010 alleging HAMP denials and misconduct; the court treated the December 2010 letter as a motion for reconsideration of final judgment and held hearings U.S. Bank repeatedly did not attend.
The trial court entered an order vacating the final judgment and dismissing the foreclosure with prejudice as to pre-order defaults; U.S. Bank did not seek rehearing or appeal that order at the time.
More than four years later U.S. Bank moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4) to set aside the vacatur order as void for lack of jurisdiction; the trial court summarily denied the motion and U.S. Bank appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Bank)	Defendant's Argument (Anthony-Irish)	Held
Whether the trial court's post-judgment vacatur/dismissal was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Court lost jurisdiction after entering final judgment and thus lacked authority to order mediation or later vacate judgment	Court retained jurisdiction over foreclosure matters; any defects were procedural (continuing/case jurisdiction), not lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	The court held there was no lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; U.S. Bank's motion was untimely and therefore denied
Whether lack of notice rendered the post-judgment orders void	U.S. Bank contends it lacked notice that final judgment could be vacated or that dismissal was possible	Court and notices referenced motions to vacate/reconsider final judgment and provided opportunity to be heard; U.S. Bank had notice	The court found adequate notice; this was a procedural defect, not subject-matter jurisdictional defect
Whether Anthony-Irish's December 2010 letter could be treated as a timely Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion	If treated as a 1.540(b)(3) motion it was untimely (more than one year after final judgment)	Court treated the letter as a motion and held hearings; even if untimely, that is a procedural error	The court concluded timeliness is a procedural issue; not a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether relief under Rule 1.540(b)(4) is time-barred absent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	U.S. Bank argued the order was void and thus reviewable at any time	Anthony-Irish argued the order was not void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and U.S. Bank's motion was brought after an unreasonable delay	The court held that only a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction avoids the timeliness requirement; U.S. Bank failed to show such a defect; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Brogdon, 185 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (standard of review for Rule 1.540 motions)
Rooney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 102 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (discussing entitlement to evidentiary hearing under Rule 1.540)
Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2003) (distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from continuing/procedural jurisdiction after final judgment)
Cent. Park A Metrowest Condo. Ass’n v. AmTrust REO I, LLC, 169 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (mediated agreement enforcement requires written agreement in record)
Arquette v. Rutter, 150 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (orders entered without subject-matter jurisdiction reviewable at any time)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Michaels, 166 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (post-judgment orders entered without notice may be void)
Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) (inherent power to enforce orders)
Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (importance of finality of judgments)