Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Michelle A. Giesel
155 So. 3d 411
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wells Fargo filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint after borrowers defaulted; only one borrower answered and two were defaulted. Final judgment of foreclosure entered in August 2012; judgment not appealed.
- Bank purchased the property at the judicial sale and received certificates of sale and title.
- Eight months after title issued, Wells Fargo moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) to vacate the final judgment, the sale, and the certificates, alleging the mortgage contained an erroneous legal description and requesting relief to allow reformation of the mortgage and foreclosure with the correct description.
- Borrowers did not respond and the trial court did not hold a hearing; the court’s written order (largely based on the bank’s proposed order but with handwritten additions) vacated the sale, certificates, final judgment, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
- Bank moved for rehearing, arguing it did not seek dismissal and was denied due process by the court’s sua sponte dismissal; the trial court denied rehearing and the bank appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Defendant's Argument (Borrowers / Trial Court rationale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could sua sponte dismiss the foreclosure action after granting relief vacating judgment/sale | Bank did not request dismissal; it sought vacatur to permit mortgage reformation and continuation of the same case | Court treated dismissal as appropriate to return parties to original status so foreclosure must begin anew | Reversed as to dismissal: sua sponte dismissal denied due process and was not justified; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether vacatur of the judgment/sale/certificates was appropriate remedy to allow reformation and re-foreclosure in the same action | Vacatur is the relief requested and would restore parties to pre-judgment posture so bank can amend complaint and seek reformation | Dissent: precedent requires restarting foreclosure by filing a new complaint when erroneous legal description carried into judgment/sale | Vacatur of judgment/sale/certificates (as requested) is appropriate; but court erred by adding dismissal without notice/hearing |
| Whether the bank’s generic "other relief" clause authorized dismissal without notice | Generic wherefore clause did not give meaningful notice that dismissal would be sought | Trial court relied on clause to justify dismissal as "appropriate" relief | Court held clause insufficient to permit sua sponte dismissal; due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Effect of Lucas and Fisher on post-judgment attempts to correct legal description | Bank argued Lucas/Fisher allow vacatur and reformation within the original foreclosure once judgment and certificates are set aside | Dissent read Lucas/Fisher to require starting the foreclosure process anew (i.e., new complaint) when error existed at time of final judgment | Majority: Lucas/Fisher do not require dismissal of the action; they contemplate vacatur of judgment/sale and reformation in the original proceeding once vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, Inc. v. Headley, 130 So.3d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (generic prayer for relief does not give meaningful notice to support unrequested relief)
- Liton Lighting v. Platinum Television Grp., Inc., 2 So.3d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (sua sponte dismissal on unpleaded grounds denies due process without notice and hearing)
- Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee County, 705 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (if mistaken legal description is carried into judgment/sale, deed cannot be reformed; foreclosure process must be reinitiated unless parties are returned to original status)
- Fisher v. Villamil, 56 So. 559 (Fla. 1911) (erroneous legal description in mortgage cannot be corrected by reforming foreclosure deed; deed must be canceled and judgment set aside before reforeclosure)