Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Shelton
223 So. 3d 414
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wells Fargo sued the Sheltons for foreclosure in 2013 and attached copies of the note and mortgage to a verified complaint.
- The Sheltons served requests for admission seeking that Wells Fargo admit it was not the original lender, not the holder/owner of the note, did not possess the note, and that the attached note copy was not a true copy.
- Wells Fargo failed to timely respond; the requests were deemed admitted under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370, but Wells Fargo moved for leave to file a belated response (citing excusable neglect/calendaring error) about 18 months later.
- The trial court denied Wells Fargo’s motion for relief from the technical admissions; afterwards the Sheltons moved for summary judgment relying on those admissions.
- The trial court entered final summary judgment for the Sheltons. On appeal, the Fifth DCA reversed and remanded because record evidence contradicted the admissions and the Sheltons failed to show prejudice from allowing withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sheltons) | Defendant's Argument (Wells Fargo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should deny relief from technical admissions under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370 | The deemed admissions conclusively establish Wells Fargo lacked standing to foreclose | Wells Fargo sought leave to withdraw admissions for excusable neglect and argued the record (verified complaint, attached note, possession of original) contradicts the admissions | Court found error in denying relief where motion for relief was filed before Sheltons relied on admissions and record evidence contradicted admissions; relief appropriate |
| Whether summary judgment may be entered solely on technical admissions when pleadings/record contradict them and no prejudice shown | Summary judgment was proper because admissions established lack of standing | Summary judgment improper because verified complaint and other evidence showed Wells Fargo claimed and possessed the note; Sheltons showed no prejudice from withdrawal | Court reversed summary judgment because record evidence contradicted admissions and Sheltons failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Voorhees, 194 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (preference to decide genuinely disputed claims on the merits rather than on technical admissions)
- PennyMac Corp. v. Labeau, 180 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (liberal interpretation of rule 1.370 to allow merits determination)
- Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Mkt. Letter, Inc., 413 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (allowing relief from technical admissions to reach merits)
- In re Forfeiture of 1982 Ford Mustang, 725 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (error to use technical admissions for summary judgment when record contains contrary evidence)
- HSBC Bank USA v. Parodi, 193 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (reversible error to grant summary judgment solely on failure to respond where pleadings/record contradict admissions and no prejudice shown)
- Asset Mgmt. Consultants of Va., Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 913 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (distinguished: there the motion for relief came after summary judgment hearing and no contrary record evidence existed)
- Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (calendaring errors may be excusable and justify relief from technical admissions)