CHANDLER M. LUCAS AND SHIRLEY K. LUCAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF LEE COUNTY, APPELLEE
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 Lucas appellants challenge a summary judgment that reformed an erroneous legal description in a mortgage, partial release, and certificate of title following a foreclosure sale. The court reversed, holding that once a foreclosure judgment becomes final with an incorrect legal description carried into the deed, the court cannot simply reform the documents; instead, the foreclosure must begin anew after canceling the deed and setting aside the original judgment.
The court has no authority to reform the documents without first canceling the certificate of title and setting aside the original foreclosure judgment. If the mistaken legal description is not corrected before the final foreclosure judgment, the foreclosure process must begin anew rather than allowing simple reformation of the existing judgment and deed.
[1] A court cannot reform an erroneous legal description in a foreclosure deed and judgment if the mistake was not corrected before the final judgment of foreclosure; the for…
[2] Before a court can reform a mortgage with an incorrect legal description after a foreclosure sale, the certificate of title must be canceled and the original foreclosure…
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, however, the mistaken legal description is not corrected before final judgment of foreclosure, and the mistake is carried into the advertisement for sale and the foreclosure deed, a court cannot reform the mistake in the deed and judgment; rather, the foreclosure process must begin anew.”
States the core holding that reformation is not permissible after final foreclosure judgment; instead, the original judgment and deed must be canceled and foreclosure restarted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnett Bank foreclosed on a mortgage given by the Lucases and obtained title at a foreclosure sale. The bank then sought to reform the legal descript…
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 Equitable Reformation cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Chandler and Shirley Lucas challenge a final summary judgment modifying a legal description in a mortgage, partial release of security agreement, and certificate of title. Barnett Bank of Lee County had previously foreclosed on a mortgage given by the Lucas-es, and had obtained title to the property at a foreclosure sale. The bank brought this new action to reform an erroneous legal description in all the previously-recited documents. We reverse because the trial court had no authority to correct the inaccurate legal descriptions without first canceling the certificate of title and setting aside the original foreclosure judgment.
None of the parties contest the, fact that the legal description in all the documents is incorrect. The metes and bounds description contains an erroneous distance and a mistaken course direction. As a result, the legal description does not close, and consequently it does not describe an actual parcel of real estate. The Lucases admitted both the error and the correct legal description in response to requests for admission from Barnett.
When a mortgage contains an incorrect legal description, a court may correct the mistake before foreclosure. If, however, the mistaken legal description is not corrected before final judgment of foreclosure, and the mistake is carried into the advertisement for sale and the foreclosure deed, a court cannot reform the mistake in the deed and judgment; rather, the foreclosure process must begin anew. Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472, 56 So. 559 (1911). The reason behind this policy is that, if the mortgage is not reforeclosed, the purchaser would have obtained title to a property that was not properly ordered for sale, advertised, or sold. While the mortgagee who bid its mortgage at the sale might have understood exactly what property was being offered, other potential bidders at the sale might not have had the same understanding. 62 Fla. at 479, 56 So. at 561. As the Fisher court noted, the mortgage may be reformed if a sufficient showing is made, and the reformed mortgage may be foreclosed. But first, the deed to the property must be canceled, and the original foreclosure judgment set aside, such that the parties are returned to their original status. 62 Fla. at 480, 56 So. at 561; cf. § 702.08, Fla. Stat. (1993).
We reverse the summary judgment reforming the mortgage, partial release of security agreement, and certificate of title. If Barnett wishes to pursue reformation1 it must comply with procedures set out in Fisher. Reversed.
QUINCE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur. . Under the old forms of pleading, an action to reform an incorrect legal description in a mortgage or deed was brought as a bill of review. Morton v. Smith, 133 Fla. 260, 183 So. 475 (1938). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 abolished bills of review, and requires that relief from a judgment be pursued by motion or independent action, as stated in the rule. Equitable reformation of a mortgage can now be accomplished either by filing a motion in the original action under rule 1.540(b)(5), or by filing an independent equitable action to reform the documents. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Astrid Sanchez, 187 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…sale and the foreclosure deed, a court cannot reform the mistake in the deed and judgment; rather, the foreclosure process must begin anew. Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So. 3d 159, 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cnty., 705 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). The court in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Giesel, 155 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), addressed the question of whether beginning anew requires dismissal and the filing of a new complaint. In Giesel, much like this case, a ba…
-
Epstein v. Bank OF Am., 162 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…nt of foreclosure, and the mistake is carried into the advertisement for sale and the foreclosure deed, a court cannot reform the mistake in the deed and judgment; rather, the foreclosure process must begin anew. Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee Cnty., 705 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472, 56 So. 559 (1911)). As the Second District noted, “[wjhile the mortgagee who bid its mortgage at the sale might have understood exactly what property was being offered, other potential…
-
Chandler M. Lucas and Shirley K. Lucas v. Barnett Bank OF LEE Cnty., 732 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…itle and setting aside the original foreclosure judgment. We noted that, after those things were accomplished, the bank could attempt to have the mortgage reformed and then sue to foreclose the reformed mortgage. Lucas v. Barnett Bank of Lee County, 705 So. 2d 115, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 719 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1998). Following our disposition of the appeal, the Lucases filed motions under rule 9.400(a) to have the circuit court tax and grant them a judgment for appellate costs. The court entered an o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1911)
- Morton v. Smith, 133 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1938)
- State v. Lee, 133 Fla. 825 (Fla. 1938)