U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
RAUL PROENZA, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court held that a final order entered without notice to the parties is void for lack of due process, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for relief from such an order.
U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action which was actively litigated. The trial court sua sponte entered a final order closing the action without notice …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540(B)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S.Bank”) appeals from an order denying its Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) motion for relief from a final order. We reverse and remand with directions.
U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure action against Raul and Julissa Proenza on October 12, 2012. After various filings, the trial court sua sponte entered a final order closing the foreclosure action. Although the foreclosure action had been actively litigated, was at issue, and was ready to proceed to trial, the trial court entered the final order without providing notice to the parties that it might close or dismiss the case and without sending a copy of the final order to either party. Thereafter, U.S. Bank moved for relief from the final order pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(4), asserting that the final order is void for lack of due process because it was entered without notice. The trial court denied U.S. Bank’s motion.
Although this Court reviews the denial of a motion to vacate a final judgment under an abuse of discretion standard, see Shiver v. Wharton, 9 So.3d 687, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to vacate a final order filed pursuant to rule 1.540(b) for an abuse of discretion), we find that in this case the trial court abused its discretion. It is undisputed that the final order was entered without notice to the parties. Thus, U.S. Bank’s due process rights were violated, and the final order is void. See State, Dep’t of Revenue ex rel Prinzee v. Thurmond, 721 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“This court has repeatedly held that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void ab initio.”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying U.S. Bank’s motion for relief from judgment and remand with directions to the trial court to reopen the foreclosure action.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yoanky DE LA OSA v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 208 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…urt held “we conclude that the lower court abused its discretion when it denied the state’s motion seeking to vacate the order of dismissal.” Id. (emphasis added). In fact, this Court has consistently so ruled. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Proenza, 157 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding the term “judgment” as [*263] used in Rule 1.540(b)(4) included final “orders”); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing an order denying a motion to vacate “o…1 / 2
-
Renovaship, Inc. v. Barclay Quatremain, 208 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…osite. The general principle of law is well-settled: a final judgment8 entered without adequate notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard is void. See, e.g., Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990); U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Proenza, 157 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Rodriguez v. ALS Commercial Funding, LLC, 138 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); State ex rel. Prinzee v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) and cases cited. However, Quatremain does not claim that he was not given notice o…
-
Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Fogel, 192 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…with the guarantees of due process.” Flegal v. Guardianship of Swistock, 169 So. 3d 278, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citation omitted). If a party’s due process rights are violated, the underlying final order is void. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Proenza, 157 So. 3d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “When due process is denied, fundamental error occurs.” Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.S., 154 So. 3d 1223, 1226 (Fla: 4th DCA 2015) (citation omitted). The trial court signed the scheduling order on October 14, 2014; i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shiver v. Wharton, 9 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- State v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)