FIDEL ALONSO VALLS
v.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's order that directed the issuance of a certificate of title to a bank after a foreclosure sale. The court found that the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the borrower's timely filed objections to the sale.
Yes, the trial court erred by issuing the certificate of title without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the borrower's objections, as required by statute.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by issuing a certificate of title to a property after a judicial sale when timely objections to the sale remain pending.
[2] When timely objections to a judicial sale are served, the objections must be heard by the court.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If timely objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the court.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for a hearing when objections are filed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a foreclosure judgment, the borrower filed an objection to the judicial sale and a motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court granted the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate Of Title Issuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (the bank), obtained a foreclosure judgment against Appellee, Fidel Alonso Valls (the borrower), based on the borrower’s failure to make all payments due on the promissory note secured by a residential mortgage on the subject real property which was assigned, along with the promissory note, to the bank by the original mortgagee. Following judicial sale of the property to the bank pursuant to the foreclosure judgment, the borrower timely filed an objection to the sale in accordance with section 45.031, Florida Statutes (2017), as well as an accompanying motion seeking to set aside the foreclosure judgment. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the borrower’s objection, the trial court granted the bank’s motion seeking issuance of a certificate of title to the property and directed the clerk of the court to issue title to the property to the bank.
The borrower appeals from the order directing issuance of the certificate of title to the bank. He argues that the trial court should not have granted the bank’s motion, and directed issuance of the certificate of title, without
first conducting an evidentiary hearing on his timely filed objection to the sale. The bank appropriately confesses error. The statute authorizing judicial sale to satisfy a judgment states: “If timely objections to the bid are served, the objections shall be heard by the court.” § 45.031(8), Fla. Stat. (2017). This court has held “it is error to deny the party objecting under section 45.031(8) an evidentiary hearing.” McKnight v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 214 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Regner v. Amtrust Bank, 71 So. 3d 907, 907-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (trial court commits reversible error by issuing certificate of title while objections to judicial sale remain pending).
We therefore accept the bank’s confession of error and, as this court did in McKnight, reverse and remand with directions that the trial court: (a) vacate the order directing the clerk to issue the certificate of title to the bank; (b) vacate the improperly issued certificate of title; and (c) conduct an evidentiary hearing on the borrower's objection. Nothing in this opinion shall be construed as a comment on the merits of the borrower's objection.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
KLINGENSMITH, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Regner v. Amtrust Bank, 71 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- McKnight v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 214 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)