DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GREGG E. ACKERMAN,

Appellant,

v.

HMC ASSETS, LLC, SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY AS SEPARATE 

TRUSTEE OF CAM XVIII TRUST, and US BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RMAC TRUST 

SERIES 2013-IT, 

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1942

[May 4, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CA039355.

Margery E. Golant of Margery E. Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellant.

Ashland R. Medley of Ashland Medley Law, PLLC, Coral Springs, for 

appellee HMC Assets, LLC, solely in its capacity as separate trustee of CAM 

XVIII Trust.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the underlying actions, 

because the trial court denied appellant due process by not providing him 

with an opportunity to be heard before the dismissal.

A bank filed a foreclosure action against appellant. Appellant filed a 

counterclaim against HMC Assets, the current plaintiff, and a third-party 

complaint against US Bank, a predecessor plaintiff. HMC Assets moved 

for an order dismissing all actions, claiming the parties had reached a 

settlement but that appellant had failed to sign it. HMC Assets did not 

include a copy of the settlement with its motion. 

The next day, without conducting a hearing or affording appellant an 

opportunity to respond, the trial court granted the motion and entered an 

order dismissing the foreclosure action, counterclaim, and third-party 
2

claim with prejudice. Appellant immediately moved for reconsideration, 

acknowledging that a settlement was reached but alleging that the servicer 

had not complied with its terms. As part of his request for relief, appellant 

asked that the trial court reserve jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. 

The trial court entered an order denying the motion, but also stating that 

the parties should set a fifteen-minute hearing on the motion. 

“A trial court’s dismissal of a claim with prejudice is reviewed de novo.” 

Larkin v. Buranosky, 973 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Whether 

a trial court has complied with the guarantees of due process is reviewed 

de novo. VMD Fin. Servs., Inc. v. CB Loan Purchase Assocs., 68 So. 3d 997, 

999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Due process requires that a party be given a real 

opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure before 

judgment is rendered against him. Id. 

We find that the trial court denied appellant due process by not 

providing him an opportunity to be heard. The trial court granted the 

motion to dismiss only one day after HMC Assets filed its motion without 

affording appellant an opportunity to respond and without conducting a 

hearing. Instead, the trial court relied on the allegations in the motion, 

which appellant contested. Additionally, the settlement was not attached 

to the motion and was not signed by appellant. Accordingly, we reverse 

and remand for the trial court to allow appellant a reasonable opportunity 

to respond to the motion to dismiss and be given an opportunity to be 

heard at a hearing on the issues in dispute. 

Reversed and remanded with instructions. 

WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.