Court Opinion

ID: 9353235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 16:02:39.882539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:09:19.559407
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 11, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-217
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-21746
                          ________________

                      Taylor Hodgkins Hidalgo,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                  Irene Binder and Stuart Binder,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-
Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge.

      Alexander Rodriguez & Associates, P.A., and Alexander Rodriguez,
for appellant.

     Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski; and Lee
H. Schillinger, P.A., and Lee H. Schillinger (Weston), for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.

     HENDON, J.
        Taylor Hodgkins Hidalgo (“appellant”), one of the defendants below,1

appeals from a non-final order granting Irene and Stuart Binders’ (the

“Binders”), plaintiffs below, motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We reverse.

Facts

        This case arises out of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. Upon

hearing both parties’ motions for summary judgment, the trial court orally

denied the Binders’ motion for summary judgment, and granted the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, reserving jurisdiction to

determine entitlement to and amount of attorney’s fees and costs. The trial

court instructed the defendants’ counsel to prepare a proposed order and

send it to the Binders’ counsel for review before submitting it to the trial

court. The Binders’ counsel indicated he had no objection to the entry of

defendants’ proposed order. On March 1, 2021, the trial court entered the

seven-page final summary judgment order as proposed by the defendants.

In its order, the trial court recited the facts of the case, the legal standard,

analyzed the issues, concluded that the mortgage was unenforceable,

1
  Appellant Taylor Hodgkins Hidalgo is one of John Michael Hodgkins’
(“J.M.”) two daughters. Other defendants below include John Doe as
Personal Representative of the Estate of John Michael Hodgkins, Heather
Hodgkins (J.M.’s daughter), and Chadd Hodgkins (J.M.’s son) (collectively,
“defendants”).

                                       2
dissolved the lis pendens, and reserved jurisdiction to deal with any further

issues regarding the title, note and mortgage, as well as entitlement to fees

and costs to be awarded to the defendants. The summary judgment order

was electronically served on the offices of both parties’ counsels that same

day.

       On March 12, 2021, the Binders’ counsel passed away. Two months

later, in May 2021, the Binders’ new counsel filed a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). In that

motion, the Binders asserted that they were entitled to vacate the summary

judgment order and re-instate the same order thereby providing them with

a new 15-day period for filing a motion for rehearing and a new 30-day

period for filing a notice of appeal as a result of former counsel’s death prior

to the deadline for filing those motions. To establish the inadvertence or

excusable neglect required by rule 1.540, the Binders alleged that they did

not hear from their counsel’s office until weeks after his death, and did not

learn of the trial court’s ruling until they retrieved their file from counsel’s

office sometime in April 2021. The Binders argued that there were factual

and legal issues precluding summary judgment, specifically equitable

subrogation, that could have and should have been raised in a motion for

rehearing or on appeal.

                                       3
      In response, the defendants contended that summary judgment had

not been entered as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect because the Binders’ counsel had presented his clients’

substantive arguments at the summary judgment hearing, he had approved

the proposed order, received the summary judgment order on March 1,

2021, and did not pass away until twelve days later. Thus there was no

mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect prior to the rendition of the

order, or as a result of appellees’ counsels’ death, that necessitated relief.

      The trial court held a hearing on the Binders’ rule 1.540(b) motion for

relief from judgment. The Binders argued that the March 1, 2021 summary

judgment order should be vacated and re-instated 1) to afford them a new

rehearing period to raise the issue of equitable subrogation; and 2) to re-

enter the order of summary judgment so as to permit them to file a timely

appeal because they did not personally receive timely notice, were not

personally served with a copy of the order of summary judgment, and

allegedly did not receive it until after the time to file an appeal had lapsed.

      For the first time, the Binders argued that the summary judgment

order merely established entitlement to a judgment and did not actually

enter “final” judgment. They contended that as there is no language of

finality, there was no “final” summary judgment order on the docket or any

                                       4
subsequent order issued containing words of finality. The Binders did not

raise the issue of finality in their 1.540(b) motion and responses leading up

to the hearing. The trial court questioned the Binders’ counsel why they

should be entitled to a new opportunity to move for rehearing in order to

raise the issue of equitable subrogation, an issue that was not raised in the

original summary judgment motion and hearing, especially if the issue was

known for the entire litigation. The Binders’ counsel responded that the

issue of equitable subrogation could be raised at any time, even as late as

appeal, citing to Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731

So. 2d 638, 645–46 (Fla. 1999). 2

     The trial court ultimately granted the Binders’ motion, holding:

2
  We note that, in that case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, rather
than upheld, the Third District Court's tipsy coachman affirmance. Id. at
645–46. The Third District's tipsy coachman affirmance had been based on
matters argued before the trial court following a jury trial. Id. at 644. An
appellate court is “‘not at liberty to address issues that were not raised by
the parties.’” Rosier v. State, 276 So. 3d 403, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (en
banc) (quoting Anheuser-Busch Co., Inc. v. Staples, 125 So. 3d 309, 312
(Fla. 1st DCA 2013)). “Nor may an appellate court ‘depart from its
dispassionate role and become an advocate by second guessing counsel
and advancing for him [or her] theories and defenses which counsel either
intentionally or unintentionally has chosen not to mention.’” Rosier, 276 So.
3d at 406 (quoting Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d
958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (on motion for rehearing)).

                                     5
     ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiffs’ Motion from Relief
     from Judgment is GRANTED for the reasons stated below. The
     Order granting Summary Final Judgment for the Defendants
     and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment appears to
     lack the general words of finality, to render it a final order.
     Alternatively, even if such order is a final order, the Plaintiff has
     demonstrated both excusable neglect and due diligence in
     moving to set aside the order. Specifically, this court finds that
     that illness or death can constitute excusable neglect. Church v
     Strickland, 382 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The Clerk is
     directed to remove docket entry reference to a summary final
     judgment, numbered 41, from the Court's docket for this case.

Defendant Taylor Hodgkins Hidalgo appeals.

     We review an order ruling on a motion for relief from judgment filed

under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) under an abuse of discretion

standard. Foche Mortg., LLC v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 163 So. 3d 525, 526

(Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “An appellate court will not disturb an order of the trial

court in the exercise of its judicial discretion unless an abuse of that

discretion is clearly shown.” Feldman v. Feldman, 324 So. 2d 117, 118

(Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Tikhomirov v. Bank of New York Mellon, 223 So. 3d

1112, 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding a trial court is accorded broad

discretion in determining rule 1.540(b) motions).

Discussion

     The parties argue that this Court should determine the finality of the

underlying summary judgment order. Although the determination of the

finality of an order is a pure question of law and is subject to de novo

                                      6
review,3 this Court is not tasked in this appeal with evaluating the

underlying summary judgment order. The only order on appeal is the order

granting the Binders’ 1.540(b) motion, which warrants application of a very

different, abuse of discretion, standard of review.

      The order granting the 1.540(b) motion is a non-final order.           The

order is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5),

which expressly governs procedures applicable to “[o]rders entered on an

authorized[4] and timely motion for relief from judgment.” The rule is thus

3
  ProntoCash, LLC v. Autoboutique of Miami, Inc., 336 So. 3d 1212, 1215
(Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding the determination of the finality of an order is a
pure question of law and is subject to de novo review) (citing M.M. v. Fla.
Dep't of Child. & Fams., 189 So. 3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016)).

4
 In New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Devs., LLC, 225 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla.
3d DCA 2017), this Court stated:

      We are mindful that the committee notes purporting to explain
      our Supreme Court's 2008 amendment to rule 9.130(a)(5)
      characterize rehearing motions directed toward rule 1.540
      motions as unauthorized. Those notes read, in relevant part, as
      follows: “Subdivision (a)(5) has been amended to recognize the
      unique nature of the orders listed in this subdivision and to
      codify the holdings of all of Florida's district courts of appeal on
      this subject. The amendment also clarifies that motions for
      rehearing directed to these particular types of orders are
      unauthorized and will not toll the time for filing a notice of
      appeal.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) committee notes (2008).
      Committee notes, however, are not binding authority. K.D. v.
      State, 470 So. 2d 1387, 1389 (Fla. 1985).

                                       7
applicable to all orders granting or denying a party's rule 1.540 motion,

irrespective of whether the order is “final” or “non-final.” New Day Miami,

LLC v. Beach Devs., LLC, 225 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “An

order on a party's rule 1.540 motion seeking relief from judgment may be

final or non-final. Such an order granting a party's rule 1.540 motion

seeking relief from a judgment may be “non-final” if it vacates a judgment,

i.e., the adjudication of the parties' dispute continues.” Id. at 375 n.6. Thus,

because the order on appeal vacated the final summary judgment, the

parties’ dispute continues and the nature of the order is non-final.

      On the merits, the order on appeal is equivocal. On the one hand,

the trial court concluded that the summary judgment order “appeared” to

lack general words of finality, determined that it was a non-final order, and

the trial court subsequently removed reference to a “final” summary

judgment from the case docket. Alternatively, the trial court suggested that

“if” the summary judgment was a final order, the Binders had demonstrated

excusable neglect. Neither of these conclusions are supported in the record

or in the law.

      We reverse the order on appeal for two reasons. First, by granting

the Binders’ rule 1.540 motion and characterizing the underlying summary

judgment order as non-final, the trial court erroneously allowed them a new

                                       8
post-judgment rehearing period to assert a substantive issue – equitable

subrogation – that they failed to raise prior to and during the original

summary judgment hearing. See, e.g. Boyd v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 412 So.

2d 944, 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding a party may not defeat an entered

summary judgment by altering previously filed pleadings, especially when

the matters it seeks to present by amendment were available prior to the

entry of summary judgment) (citation omitted).         The issue of equitable

subrogation was not raised in the Binders’ complaint for foreclosure,

subsequent pleadings, or in their motion for final summary judgment. The

record indicates that they first raised the issue of equitable subrogation in

their post-judgment motion for relief from judgment.

     Second, the trial court misapplied the excusable neglect analysis by

misinterpreting the facts when it, alternatively, concluded that even if the

summary judgment order is a “final” order, the Binders had demonstrated

excusable neglect as a result of counsel’s death. We disagree.

     The Binders rely on City of Ocala v. Heath, 518 So. 2d 325, 325 (Fla.

5th DCA 1987), to argue that that they should be excused as a result of

counsel’s post-judgment death. Although it is true that the illness and death

of counsel meets the definition of excusable neglect as a ground for

vacating or setting aside a judgment, decree, or order pursuant to Florida

                                     9
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1)), City of Ocala and its progeny have to

do with counsel’s pre-judgment physical or mental impairment that led to an

error that may warrant relief. The record, however, does not indicate that

the Binders’ counsel was in any way impaired during the litigation leading

up to the summary judgment order.

      Rather, the facts show that counsel passed away after the final

summary judgment order was rendered, four days before the time for filing

a motion for rehearing closed, and approximately two weeks before the

time for filing a notice of appeal. The Binders do not argue that their

counsel was in any way impaired prior to the rendition of the final summary

judgment order. The record shows that both counsels’ offices received

notice of the summary judgment order the day it was rendered on April 1,

2021. The Binders also contend they should have had notice mailed

directly to them. However, all of the record pleadings in the litigation were

e-filed with the court and emailed to the parties’ counsels’ offices, not to the

clients themselves. This argument lacks merit because notice was not

required to be sent to the client directly, as they were represented by

counsel. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080.

      The appellant contends that the Binders’ counsel’s office could have

timely notified them of the summary judgment order and, if counsel could

                                      10
not timely file a motion for rehearing or notice of appeal, another attorney

could have been retained to do so. The trial court made no findings along

these lines, or that the Binders, who knew about the summary judgment

hearing, should have kept themselves apprised of the status of their

litigation.

       Finally, the Binders argued at the hearing on their motion for relief

from judgment that if the trial court found the summary judgment order was

non-final, it should treat the motion as a rule 1.530 motion for

reconsideration instead of a rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment, and

re-enter the summary judgment order to allow the parties a new rehearing

period. Rule 1.530(b) has a jurisdictional time window of 15 days from the

“date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.” Such a motion at this

point would be untimely, and in any event, the trial court had lost

jurisdiction to consider a rule 1.530 motion at the time of the hearing.

       The order on relief from judgment fails to adequately explain the

factual and legal basis for granting relief, and errs in its application of rule

1.540. For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the order granting the

Binders’ 1.540 motion for relief from judgment and remand for further

consistent proceedings.

       Reversed and remanded.

                                      11