DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE L. PATINO, 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.
Deutsche Bank appealed the denial of its motion to vacate a final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case, arguing that the judgment granted relief not requested in the pleadings. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to award relief outside the scope of the pleadings.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief canceling the mortgage lien because Patino did not affirmatively plead for or seek such relief at trial, making that portion of the judgment void. The order denying Bank's motion to vacate was reversed.
[1] A trial court is without jurisdiction to award relief that was not requested in the pleadings or tried by consent of the parties.
[2] A judgment that grants relief wholly outside the pleadings is void.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a trial court is without jurisdiction to award relief that was not requested in the pleadings or tried by consent.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that relief must be within the scope of pleadings or tried with consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against Jose Patino on a mortgage in Osceola County. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of Patin…
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 Motion To Vacate Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee of the Indymac INDX Mortgage Trust 2006-AR25, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2600-AR 25, under the Pooling and Service Agreement Dated July 1, 2006 (“Bank”), appeals the order denying its Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion to vacate final judgment. We reverse because the judgment granted relief on a matter which was outside of the pleadings and which was not tried by consent of the parties.
Bank filed an action against Jose L. Patino (“Appellee”) to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by Appellee in Osceola County. The case proceeded to trial and the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Appellee, essentially concluding that Bank had failed to establish its standing at the time the suit was filed and failed to comply with one of the conditions precedent necessary to bringing suit. Bank did not appeal. *638Approximately seven and ' one-half months after the judgment became final, Bank- filed a motion pursuant- to rule 1.540(b), asserting that the final judgment was void because it provided relief to Ap-pellee that was not requested by Appellee in his pleadings. Specifically, Bank objected to paragraph five of the Final Judgment, which provided:
5. The mortgage lien, which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, recorded in the public records of Osceola County, Florida at Book 3177, Page 210 through 230 is no longer of legal effect.,
Bank argued that Appellee did not plead for this relief nor seek this relief at trial and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to nullify or cancel the mortgage lien. The lower court denied Bank’s motion, and this appeal, ensued,-
Rule 1.540(b)(4) provides, in part, that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or decree that is void. It is axiomatic that “[a] trial court is without jurisdiction to award relief that was not requested in the pleadings or tried by consent.” Wachovia Mortg. Corp. v. Posti, 166 So.3d 944, 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citations omitted). “[A] judgment which grants relief wholly outside the pleadings is void.” Id. (quoting Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Reyes, 126 So.3d 304, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)).
Our review of the pleadings and the trial transcript show that Appellee did not affirmatively plead for or seek a determination at trial that the mortgage lien be cancelled or declared to be “no longer of legal effect.” Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Appellee this relief, rendering this portion of the judgment void.1 See Posti, 166 So.3d at 945. Therefore, we reverse the order denying Bank’s motion to vacate the final judgment. We remand this case with directions that the trial court vacate the final judgment and enter an amended final judgment that deletes the aforementioned paragraph five.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with DIRECTIONS.
BERGER, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Anthony-Irish, 204 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…"case jurisdiction"); Scott Stephens, Florida’s Third Species of Jurisdiction,. 82 Fla. Bar J. 10 (2008) (describing "procedural jurisdiction”). . In support of its argument on this point, U.S. Bank cites Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Patino, 192 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). This Court in Patino reversed the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s rule 1.540(b)(4) motion and remanded for a revised judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief the appellee did not plead or affi…
Authorities Cited
- Wachovia Mortg. Corp. v. Posti, 166 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon under Novastar Mortg. Funding Tr. v. Reyes, 126 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)