Court Opinion

ID: 9897085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:06:50.454976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:58.879141
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                  STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                         Case No. 5D23-0059
                    LT Case No. 2016-CA-003402
                   _____________________________

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

    Appellant,

    v.

ABPAYMAR, LLC, et al.,

    Appellee.
                   _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Eric C. Roberson, Judge.

Tricia J. Duthiers, of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for
Appellant.

Christopher Hixson, of Segal & Schuh Law Group, P.L.,
Clearwater, for Appellee.

                         November 9, 2023

PER CURIAM.

     Bank of America (BOA) attempted to foreclose on a mortgage
of a residence in the Queens Harbor community in Jacksonville,
Florida. The trial court decided that BOA could not continue with
the foreclosure because a 2006 foreclosure judgment regarding the
property remained in effect. For the reasons that follow, the case
is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

     In a September 2006 case, a final judgment of foreclosure was
entered in favor of Countrywide Bank (Countrywide) against the
then-current owner of the residence at issue. Nearly five years
later, the foreclosure sale had not yet taken place, and the trial
court entered a final order of dismissal without prejudice for lack
of prosecution on May 4, 2011. A few months later, Countrywide
filed a motion to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and
return the original note and mortgage. Soon thereafter, the then-
assigned trial judge entered an order vacating the 2006 final
judgment and directing the Clerk to return the original documents
(the 2011 vacation order).

     In 2012, Countrywide assigned the mortgage to BOA, who
brought suit to foreclose on the mortgage in 2016. Also in 2012, the
defendant in the present case, Abpaymar, LLC, purchased the
home. It requested, and the current trial judge granted, judicial
notice of the 2006 litigation. Based upon the prior litigation,
Abpaymar LLC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arguing
that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
because the 2011 vacation order was erroneous such that the 2006
final judgment remained in effect, making Countrywide—not
BOA—the proper mortgage holder. The trial court granted the
motion, concluding that the vacation order was erroneous and
“ineffectual,” such that the 2006 foreclosure judgment remained in
place; as such, it lacked jurisdiction to foreclose the mortgage held
by BOA, who now appeals. We review the grant of a motion to
dismiss de novo. See Swearingen v. Villa, 277 So. 3d 778, 780 (Fla.
5th DCA 2019).

     The central issue is whether the current trial court had the
power to revisit and nullify the 2011 order that vacated the 2006
final judgment of foreclosure and returned the original note and
mortgage to Countrywide (who subsequently assigned the
documents to BOA). It did not. The trial court mistakenly
relitigated the procedural validity of the 2011 vacation order, a
matter previously adjudicated with finality; it had no authority to
reconsider the order and deem it “ineffectual” and thereby “void
and of no force or effect” because of its view that Countrywide set

                                    2
forth inadequate grounds for the relief obtained. This court has
reiterated that the finality of judgments is of great import even
when the judgments may have been wrongly decided. U.S. Bank
Nat’l Ass’n v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57, 62 n.5 (Fla. 5th DCA
2016) (citing Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 1980)). To the
extent that a perceived procedural infirmity may have existed in
the entry of the 2011 vacation order, it is outweighed by the need
for finality.

     In this regard, the parties involved in litigation over the
residence were entitled to govern their behavior based on the 2006
foreclosure judgment having been vacated. Countrywide retained
the original note and mortgage and had the right to engage in
further negotiations regarding the disposition of the property,
perhaps reaching an accord with the debtor; it could also assign
the mortgage as it did to BOA. Indeed, the residence was sold and
eventually bought by Abpaymar, LLC, who was aware that the
2006 foreclosure judgment was vacated and that the subsequent
purchaser, BOA, could potentially initiate an action on the note
and mortgage.

    Foreclosure actions are within the jurisdiction of the circuit
courts. See Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858,
861 (Fla. 1994); Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. The trial court thereby
had subject matter jurisdiction over this foreclosure action brought
by BOA as possessor of the note and mortgage on the residential
property. Because the trial court erred in refusing to give effect to
the 2011 order vacating the final judgment, its order dismissing
BOA’s action for lack of jurisdiction is reversed and the case
remanded for further proceedings.

    REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

MAKAR, WALLIS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

                                    3
            _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
            _____________________________

                         4