Court Opinion

ID: 9917441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 15:03:10.43909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:01.191192
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-0152
                  LT Case No. 2021 CA 005083
                 _____________________________

KIRKPATRICK TRUST, a FLORIDA
LAND TRUST DATED JULY 1,
2021,

    Appellant,

    v.

LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICES,
LLC., DARCHEL HOUSTON, et al.,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
A.C. Soud, Jr., Judge.

Rafael F. Garcia, of Ralph F. Garcia, PLLC, Longwood, for
Appellant.

Thomas A. Valdez and Megan G. Colter, of Quintairos, Prieto,
Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

                        January 12, 2024

KILBANE, J.

     Kirkpatrick Trust, a Florida Land Trust dated July 1, 2021
(“the Trust”), appeals the trial court’s order denying the Trust’s
motion to intervene in this foreclosure proceeding, which it heard
and ruled upon at a case management conference. The Trust
asserts that it was denied due process because it was not given
notice that its motion would be considered at the conference. We
agree and reverse.1

     Appellee, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Lakeview”), filed
the action below to foreclose on a mortgage on residential real
property. The Trust filed a motion to intervene, claiming an
ownership interest in the property, and Lakeview filed a written
response. During the pendency of the case and while the motion
to intervene remained pending, Lakeview filed a notice of case
management conference. That notice did not indicate that the
motion to intervene, or any other motion, would be heard at the
conference.2 While the Trust was provided timely notice of the
conference, no one appeared on the Trust’s behalf. The trial court’s
order establishes that it heard the motion, considered it, heard
argument from the party present—Lakeview—and denied the
Trust’s motion to intervene at that conference.

     Courts have all but foreclosed fundamental error in civil cases.
Grau v. Branham, 761 So. 2d 375, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Nonetheless, basic principles of due process must be observed.
“Fundamental error occurs when the error goes ‘to the heart of a
trial and vitiate[s] its fairness.’” Weiser v. Weiser, 132 So. 3d 309,
310–11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation omitted). As such, the denial
of “the opportunity to be heard, to testify, and to present evidence,”
generally results in fundamental error. “A trial court ‘provides due

      1 We have jurisdiction. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla.
v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (en banc).

      2  The trial court’s initial case management order stated in
pertinent part, “[a]t the hearing the Court may . . . facilitate the
elimination of legal or factual issues.” Because that order setting
the initial case management conference is not at issue here, and
the notice of case management conference filed by Lakeview did
not contain that or similar language, we do not express a view as
to whether this language would have constituted sufficient notice
to the Trust that their pending motion to intervene, or any other
motion, might be heard at that conference.

                                  2
process if the complaining party was given notice and an
opportunity to be heard.’” Thomas v. Cromer, 276 So. 3d 69, 72
(Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Weiler, 227
So. 3d 181, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)).

    To be sufficient, notice must be “reasonably calculated,
    under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties
    of the pendency of the action and afford them an
    opportunity to present their objections. The notice must
    . . . convey the required information, and it must afford a
    reasonable time for those interested to make their
    appearance.”

J.G.G. v. M.S., 312 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (alteration
in original) (quoting De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla.
3d DCA 2015)). As such, “[a] court violates a party’s due process
rights by expanding the scope of a hearing without proper notice.”
Carson-Grayson v. Grayson, 247 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA
2018) (citing Haeberli v. Haeberli, 157 So. 3d 489, 490 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2015) (reversing rulings on motions not included in notice of
hearing); Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
(reversing ruling made at conference not noticed for such purpose);
Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So. 3d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
(reversing paternity decision made at conference not noticed for
that purpose)).

       Case management conferences can be helpful tools for both
judges and litigants. Due to the expansive nature of such
conferences, it requires focus on the notice itself to determine what
may be properly addressed at the conference and what must be left
for another day. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(a), which
governs case management conferences, requires that “[t]he matter
to be considered must be specified in the order or notice setting the
conference.” (emphasis added).

     Here, the notice failed to indicate that any substantive
matters might be heard at the case management conference.
Therefore, hearing the Trust’s motion without notice and without
the consent of both parties that they were prepared to go forward
with the unnoticed motion violated the Trust’s procedural due
process rights and constituted fundamental error. While the court

                                 3
was not required to have a hearing on such a motion,3 once it chose
to do so, due process was required.

     Importantly, the violation of procedural due process in this
case deprived the Trust of notice and opportunity to be heard on a
critical issue – whether the Trust could participate in the case as
a party. We have no trouble concluding that this violation of due
process went to “the heart of the trial and vitiates its fairness.”

    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the
Trust’s motion to intervene and remand it for a properly noticed
hearing.4

    REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

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

        While hearings on certain motions are required by rule or
        3

statute, this is not so for a motion to intervene, including one
governed by section 48.23(1)(d), Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. Civ.
P. 1.230; § 48.23(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2021).

    4 We express no opinion regarding the merits of the Trust’s
motion to intervene.

                                4