Vacating A Judgment/Order Requires Sworn Testimony Or Evidence--Not A Lawyers Argument

In Chase Home Loans v. Sosa (3D12-1783), the Third District reversed an order vacating a foreclosure sale. The motion was filed by a husband who asserted that his wife, a co-signatory on the mortgage, "'actively concealed' the proceeding by hiding all notifications under the family sofa." The trial court vacated the sale, presumably "inspired by benevolence and compassion for the family." However, there was no issue of service of process and there was no sworn evidence or testimony submitted in favor of vacating the foreclosure sale. 

The court stated that:

The husband’s motion was brought under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), which permits a trial court to relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree or order based upon mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. However, as we often have said, unsworn representations of counsel about factual matters do not have any evidentiary weight in the absence of a stipulation....“It is of no moment in establishing facts that attorneys are ‘officers of the court’ as we often read when an unsworn representation is made.”...Nor is the fact that the wife may have been the subject of some undetected “degree of mental incapacity” during the course of the foreclosure action. Even if true, this does not create a sufficient showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect to warrant vacating a final judgment.

A motion to vacate requires the submission of actual sworn evidence in order to be considered on the merits. The motion in this case did not even have that. Because the attorneys mere legal argument was not sufficient, the court reversed the order vacating the foreclosure sale. 

Florida Supreme Court: Certification of Need for Additional Judges

In In re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges, the Florida Supreme Court fulfilled its constitutional obligation and sent a report to the Legislature regarding the various needs of the judiciary.

The Court noted the following regarding the circuit & county courts: "Several of our chief judges note, in particular, the long waits associated with obtaining hearing times. In some jurisdictions, dockets are so full that it takes several weeks to schedule a hearing." I imagine many lawyers in South Florida would be thrilled if it only took several weeks to obtain a hearing time. But, the Court's point is certainly correct.

With regard to the appellate courts, I found the following to be particularly interesting: "The Second District also notes that despite high caseloads and a reduction in resources including personnel, the judges and staff have made every effort to properly execute their responsibilities. However, they do so knowing that trying to absorb this increased workload limits the time available for the consideration of each case and the writing of opinions. This Court shares the concerns of the chief judge of the Second District and remains concerned about a diminished quality of justice resulting from high workload and a loss of resources." (emphasis supplied).

The Court certified the need for one additional Second District judge. The needs of the circuit and county court were included in an appendix to the opinion, which is copied at the bottom of this post. In what is a somewhat sad concluding statement, given the real need for new judges, the Court said: "To the extent funding is available, we urge the Legislature also to consider our certified need for additional judges."

​

Funds Not Property Of ERISA Plan Until Remitted To Plan

In Pantoja v. Zengel (12-11036), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment that the money at issue was not an asset of the ERISA plan where the money had never been given to the ERISA plan. The court held:

Upon examination of the Plan documents, we find no clear and specific language indicating the fringe benefits are “plan assets” before they are actually remitted to the Plan. Indeed, unlike the plan documents in ITPE Pension Fund, this contract is not even susceptible to such a reading. See 334 F.3d at 1016. Without clear language or any evidence indicating otherwise, we conclude that the unpaid funds cannot be construed as plan assets; therefore, the Appellees did not breach a fiduciary duty as a matter of law.

"Possession of the Note Determines Standing to Foreclose"

In Everhome Mortgage Co. v. Janssen (2D11-4592), the Second District reversed the trial court's order vacating a judgment and dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated:

We are compelled to point out that possession of the note determines standing to foreclose. See Taylor v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 74 So. 3d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The holder of the original note endorsed in blank has standing. Id. "[A] mortgage is but an incident to the debt, the payment of which it secures, and its ownership follows the assignment of the debt. If the note or other debt secured by a mortgage be transferred without any formal assignment of the mortgage, or even a delivery of it, the mortgage in equity passes as an incident to the debt . . . ." WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(quoting Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140, 143 (Fla. 1938)). More fundamentally, however,"[e]ven if [the plaintiff] lacked standing when it filed suit, the final judgment is merely voidable, not void." Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 1021, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)).

As a result, the trial court's order was reversed.

Miccosukee Tribe Not Entitled To Immunity For Summones Issued to Banks

In Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States (No. 11-14825), the Eleventh Circuit released a published opinion and affirmed the trial court's order determining the Tribe could not invoke sovereign immunity to quash the subpoenas served on various financial institutions. The court's introduction, in part, stated:

In 2010, the Commissioner issued four summonses to third-party financial institutions to determine whether the Tribe had complied with its federal withholding requirements during the period from 2006 to 2009.  The Tribe petitioned to quash  the summonses on the grounds of sovereign immunity, improper purpose, relevance, bad faith, and overbreadth.  The district court denied those petitions.  Because we conclude that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the issuance of these third-party summonses, the district court did not clearly err when it found that the summonses were issued for a proper purpose, and the Tribe lacks standing to challenge the summonses for overbreadth, we affirm.

"Indian tribes are required by law to deduct and withhold income taxes from gambling revenues paid to Indian tribe members.  26 U.S.C. § 3402(r)(1).  Indian tribes are also subject to backup withholding, id. § 3406(a), and reporting requirements, id. § 6041(a).  In 2005, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service began to investigate the Miccosukee Tribe to determine whether the Tribe had complied with its reporting and withholding requirements."

"After finding that the Tribe had failed to comply with its tax obligations from 2000 to 2005, the Commissioner extended his investigation to the period from 2006 to 2009." As part of its investigation, "the Commissioner issued summonses to American Express, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and Wachovia Bank to produce documents associated with the bank and brokerage accounts maintained by the Tribe at those institutions." The Tribe sought to quash the summonses. The Eleventh Circuit held:

We recognize that Indian tribes ordinarily enjoy sovereign immunity....But the Supreme Court has also explained that tribal sovereign immunity “is not congruent with that which the Federal Government, or the States, enjoy” and “is subject to plenary federal control and definition.”

The claim to tribal sovereign immunity here fails for two reasons. First, the summonses are not suits against the Tribe. Second, tribal sovereign immunity cannot bar a suit by the United States.

Issue Relating To Collection Of Judgment Against The State Certified To Florida Supreme Court

In Florida Department of Agriculture And Consumer Services v. David Mendez (4D11-4644), the Fourth District stated: "Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125, we certify the following question to be of great public importance:

Are property owners who have recovered final judgments against  the  State  of  Florida  in  inverse  condemnation proceedings  constitutionally  entitled to invoke the  remedies provided  in  section  74.091,  Florida  Statutes,  without  first petitioning  the  Legislature  to  appropriate  such funds pursuant to section 11.066, Florida Statutes?

The court's opinion in the case, released on July 25, 2012, can be viewed HERE. In the July 25th opinion, the court held: "We  reverse  that  portion  of  the  Palm  Beach  County  order  allowing execution against the Department and remand to the  circuit  courts for further  proceedings  consistent  with this  opinion.   We  also  reverse that portion of the Broward County order holding that section 11.066(3) was constitutional as applied, because the issue was not yet ripe."

Appeal Of Order Only Determining Entitlement to Fees Is Premature

In Low Key Limited Inc., et al v. Annsser, et al (3D12-261), the Third District affirmed the trial court affirmed the trial court and dismissed the appeal to the extent it related to the trial court's order finding entitlement to attorneys fees but deferring a ruling on the amount.

As to the portion of the final judgment determining that the parties are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs but reserving jurisdiction to set the amount of the fees, we dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal of that issue in case number 3D12-2611 as a non-final determination not yet ripe for appellate review.  E.g., Rhodes v. Newport Bldg. & Constr., Inc., 86 So. 3d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“Because the order determines that [the appellee] is entitled to fees but does not determine the amount, it is a nonfinal order not yet ripe for appellate review.” (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 32 So. 3d 163, 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010))).

Motion For Stay Must Be Presented To Trial Court Before Appellate Court

In Sunbeam Television v. Clear Channel Metroplex (3D12-2138), the Third District denied a motion for stay because the trial court had not ruled on the motion. The limited circumstances that would allow the appellate court to rule in the first instance did not exist in this case. The court did enter a temporary thirty day stay to allow the trial court to rule on the stay motion.

Summary Judgment Should Not Be Entered With Reservation To Consider Defenses

In Bertha Sanchez and International Restaurants Corp. v. Soleil Builders, Inc., the Fifth District reversed the trial court's summary judgment order. The trial court  entered judgment when affirmative defenses raised by Ms. Sanchez were not considered.  The court stated:

Soleil Builders filed a Motion for Summary Final Judgment.  Several months later, the parties convened for the hearing on the Motion, which resulted in a Partial Summary Final Judgment in favor of Soleil Builders for the total amount it sought.  This judgment is the first reference to Soleil Builders’ motion as having sought only a partial summary judgment:  the court reserved jurisdiction to determine pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees and “all issues that remain pending before the Court, including deciding the issues raised in the counterclaim filed by the SANCHEZES.”  Sanchez subsequently filed for rehearing of the Partial Summary Final Judgment, contending, among other things, that her affirmative defenses had not been considered at the hearing; Sanchez wanted her defenses heard and the counterclaims considered.  Sanchez argued that since Soleil Builders had failed to refute  her affirmative defenses or address the counterclaims, summary judgment was improper.  Shortly thereafter, Soleil Builders filed its Motion for Summary Final Judgment on Sanchez’s counterclaims.  

When the hearing was held on the second motion for summary judgment, "Soleil Builders essentially contended that the issues  raised in the affirmative defenses and counterclaims had been resolved in the Partial Summary Final Judgment when the court found in favor of Soleil Builders for the total sum it had sought. The trial court entered a Final Summary Judgment on all affirmative defenses and counterclaims without comment." The court continued:

A troubling aspect of this case is the bifurcation of the claims raised in the Complaint from those asserted in Sanchez’s affirmative defenses.  The record does not provide any clue as to how it came to pass that the court rendered only a partial summary final judgment when there was nothing in Soleil Builders’ Motion that would have restricted its Motion to only the counts of its Complaint. Nothing occurred at the summary judgment hearing that suggested that it was agreed or understood that only the claims of the Complaint would be decided and, given the interwoven nature of all of the issues in the Complaint and affirmative defenses, they all should have been decided before summary judgment was entered.  It is well settled that, “[i]n order to be entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, the party seeking summary judgment must not only establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to the party's claims but must also either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient.” 

Finally, the court concluded:

The problem in entering the Partial  Summary Final Judgment and leaving for another day the issues raised in the affirmative defenses and counterclaims was made all the more apparent when Soleil Builders used the entry of the Partial Summary Final Judgment to successfully argue at the subsequent hearing that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims had already been decided adversely to Sanchez.  In short, the case below was a muddle and reversal is required because of the error that occurred when the trial court entered the two summary judgments without properly addressing the issues raised by the affirmative defenses and counterclaims filed by Sanchez.  Accordingly, the judgments  under review are reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.