Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 2, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1805

Lower Tribunal No. 19-22639

________________

ARP Acquisitions Corp., etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

PHH Mortgage Corporation,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Oscar 

Rodriguez-Fonts, Judge.

Alberto D. Rey, P.A., and Albert D. Rey, for appellant.

Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, and David 

Rosenberg (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ. 

SCALES, J.
2

Appellant ARP Acquisitions Corp. (“ARP”), a third-party purchaser at a 

foreclosure sale, appeals the trial court’s November 5, 2020 order that 

grants, in part, a motion for reconsideration filed by appellee PHH Mortgage 

Corporation (“PHH”), the foreclosing lender. The motion for reconsideration 

sought to amend a portion of a March 4, 2020 final judgment that had 

vacated the foreclosure sale and required PHH to reimburse ARP its

purchase price, as well as its fees and costs. We quash the challenged order 

because the trial court had lost jurisdiction to adjudicate PHH’s 

reconsideration motion and alter or amend the March 4th final judgment. 

I. Relevant Facts

After the trial court had entered a November 19, 2019 final foreclosure 

judgment in favor of PHH, the borrower – who is not a party to this appeal –

tendered sufficient funds to reinstate the mortgage. By that time, the trial 

court already had scheduled the foreclosure sale for January 13, 2020. PHH 

sought to vacate the foreclosure judgment and cancel the sale, but the trial 

court did not receive PHH’s hearing package in time. The foreclosure sale 

occurred, and ARP was the successful purchaser. The Clerk issued ARP the 

certificate of sale on January 16, 2020. The certificate of title, though, was 

not issued. 
3

After the sale, PHH, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

1.540(b),

1 moved to vacate the foreclosure judgment and the resulting 

foreclosure sale. The trial court entered an order on January 27, 2020 

vacating the foreclosure judgment, canceling the sale, and reinstating the 

note and mortgage. This January 27, 2020 order, however, neglected to 

authorize a refund of ARP’s purchase price; consequently, PHH filed a 

second motion to vacate the final judgment and cancel the sale. The trial 

court conducted a hearing on this second motion to vacate on March 4, 2020.

At this hearing, ARP’s counsel made an ore tenus motion for the award 

of fees and costs it had incurred associated with the foreclosure sale, which 

motion the trial court granted in its resulting order (the “March 4th final 

judgment”). The March 4th final judgment canceled the foreclosure sale, 

ordered the Clerk to refund ARP its purchase price in the amount of 

$273,181.05, and ordered PHH to pay ARP $8,534.21 in fees and costs

within twenty days of the March 4th final judgment.

PHH did not timely file a motion for rehearing pursuant to Florida Rule 

of Civil Procedure 1.530, nor did it appeal the March 4th final judgment. 

1 In relevant part, this rule reads as follows: “On motion and upon such terms 

as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from final judgment, decree, 

order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1).
4

Rather, on March 20, 2020 – more than fifteen days after the entry of the 

March 4th final judgment – PHH filed what it styled as its “motion for 

reconsideration” in which PHH generally lodged objection to that portion of 

the March 4th final judgment requiring it to pay ARP’s fees and costs (“first 

reconsideration motion”). On April 30, 2020, the trial court entered an order 

summarily denying PHH’s first reconsideration motion. 

Then, on May 5, 2020, two months after rendition of the March 4th final 

judgment, PHH renewed its motion for reconsideration (“second 

reconsideration motion”), alleging a calculation error in that portion of the 

March 4th final judgment that granted ARP $8,534.21 in fees and costs. 

On June 18, 2020, the trial court conducted a hearing on PHH’s second 

reconsideration motion, and, while we do not have a transcript of this

hearing, it appears from the record that the trial court deferred ruling on the 

motion and sought memoranda of law from the parties on, among other 

things, its jurisdiction to hear the second reconsideration motion. It is clear 

from the resulting November 5, 2020 order (the “November 5th order”)

granting PHH’s second reconsideration motion – the order on appeal – that

the trial court determined it had continuing jurisdiction to adjudicate PHH’s

second reconsideration motion. In this November 5th order, the trial court
5

ordered the setting of an evidentiary hearing to revisit its prior determination 

of the fees and costs due to ARP.

ARP timely appealed the trial court’s November 5th order. 

II. Analysis

ARP’s principal argument on appeal is that the March 4th final 

judgment was a final, appealable order as to all issues related to it, and 

therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate PHH’s first 

reconsideration motion and second reconsideration motion. We agree with 

ARP.

A party may file a motion for reconsideration to address a nonfinal 

order only. See Taufer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 278 So. 3d 335, 336-37 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2019). “Nomenclature does not control, and motions for either 

‘rehearing’ or ‘reconsideration’ aimed at final judgments shall be treated as 

rule 1.530 motions for rehearing, while motions aimed at nonfinal orders shall 

be treated as motions for reconsideration.” Seigler v. Bell, 148 So. 3d 473, 

479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

A trial court loses jurisdiction to alter or amend a final judgment after 

the time for filing a rule 1.530 motion has elapsed. Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. 

Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149, 1151-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Because it is 

undisputed that PHH’s first reconsideration motion was not filed within fifteen
6

days after rendition of the March 4th final judgment as required by rule 

1.530(g),

2 our inquiry is simply whether the trial court’s March 4th final 

judgment constituted a “final judgment” for purposes of rule 1.530. If it did, 

then the trial court lost jurisdiction to amend or alter the judgment as of March 

19, 2020, the day before PHH filed its first reconsideration motion. 

An order is final, thus triggering rule 1.530’s timing requirement, when 

no further judicial labor is required. Samara v. Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., 

LLC, 317 So. 3d 187, 188 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Weiss v. Weiss, 317 So. 

3d 167, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The traditional test for finality is whether 

the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for 

judicial determination except for execution and enforcement, if necessary.” 

(quoting Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002))). From

our review of the record, we are unaware of, and PHH has not identified, any 

issue involving ARP requiring any judicial labor after the entry of the March 

4th final judgment. All issues relating to the dispute between PHH and ARP 

were adjudicated in the March 4th final judgment. The March 4th final 

judgment was therefore final as to ARP.

2 This rule reads as follows: “A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall 

be served not later than 15 days after entry of the judgment, except that this 

rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(g).
7

Once the time period for filing a rule 1.530 motion directed toward the 

March 4th final judgment had elapsed, the trial court was without jurisdiction 

to adjudicate either PHH’s first reconsideration motion or its second 

reconsideration motion. We therefore quash the trial court’s November 5th

order as it was entered without jurisdiction.

Order quashed.