Court Opinion

ID: 9950085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:04:32.690401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:49.987933
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 13, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                             ________________

                             No. 3D21-2455
                       Lower Tribunal No. 09-75080
                          ________________

                          Roosevelt 26, LLC,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                        Ronald D. Trejo, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas and Spencer Eig, Judges.

     Neustein Law Group, P.A., and Nicole R. Moskowitz, for appellant.

      McGuireWoods LLP, and Sara F. Holladay, Emily Y. Rottmann, and
Kathleen D. Dackiewicz, (Jacksonville), for appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

     LOGUE, C.J.

     This lawsuit began fourteen years ago when Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

filed a complaint in 2009 seeking to foreclose on a condominium in downtown
Miami. Wells Fargo filed this complaint as the holder of the mortgage and

note on the property. The complaint named as the respondents, Ronald D.

Trejo, the promisor on the note, and two condominium associations that

governed the property. When Wells Fargo failed to appear for trial, the case

was dismissed without prejudice and the associated lis pendens was

cancelled. That dismissal, however, was ultimately set aside because the

trial court determined that Wells Fargo did not receive the notice for trial or

the order of dismissal. The order setting aside the dismissal was silent as to

the lis pendens.

      Meanwhile, one of the condominium associations, Met 1 Condominium

Association, Inc., filed its own foreclosure action on the condominium. A

foreclosure on its lesser interest was granted, and the condominium was sold

to Roosevelt 26, LLC to satisfy this judgment. After its case was reinstated,

and unaware of the Met 1 judgment and the condominium’s sale, Wells

Fargo obtained a final judgment of foreclosure and purchased the property

when it was put up for auction.

      Roosevelt 26 then filed an omnibus motion to intervene in the action,

cancel the auction, vacate the final judgment, and dismiss the lawsuit. The

trial court granted most of Roosevelt 26’s requests. It allowed Roosevelt 26

to intervene, canceled the auction, vacated the final judgment, and ordered

                                      2
Wells Fargo to add Roosevelt 26 as a defendant. However, the trial court

denied Roosevelt 26’s motion to dismiss. The case eventually went to trial.

After trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Wells Fargo.

Roosevelt 26 timely appealed the final judgment. On appeal, Roosevelt 26

challenges the trial court’s orders vacating the dismissal of the lawsuit and

denying Roosevelt 26’s motion to dismiss.

      First, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to vacate the dismissal

in these circumstances where the trial court determined that the plaintiff did

not receive the order setting the case for trial or the order of dismissal and

timely sought to vacate the dismissal. Fields v. Beneficial Fla., Inc., 208 So.

3d 278, 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

      Second, although Roosevelt 26 was allegedly not on notice or given

the opportunity to be heard leading up to the trial court’s first judgment, this

judgment was vacated by the trial court at Roosevelt 26’s request and

Roosevelt 26 was then named as a defendant, served with process, and had

a full opportunity to participate in the non-jury trial that led to the judgment

under review. Any due process issue therefore became moot. See Hartford

Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA

1987) (“[T]he issue created by an erroneous interlocutory order may become

                                        3
moot during the course of the trial court proceeding or by the final

judgment[.]”).

      Affirmed.

                                 4