ARMANDO A. RIVAS
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to vacate a judgment while an appeal from that judgment is pending, and an appellate court may quash such a void order even though it lacks jurisdiction to review the merits.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to enter orders, including orders on motions to vacate, once an appeal from a judgment has been filed and is pending.
[2] An appellate court may quash a void order entered without jurisdiction, even though it lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of that order.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“We agree that the circuit court's order is void and that we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the court's order. However, dismissal of the appeal is not the appropriate remedy, as we have jurisdiction to consider whether the circuit court acted outside the scope of its own jurisdiction.”
Court's explanation of why it could quash the void order despite lacking jurisdiction to review its merits.
A borrower obtained a foreclosure judgment against him. While an appeal from the foreclosure judgment was pending, the borrower filed a motion to vaca…
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 Jurisdiction Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ARMANDO RIVAS,
Appellant,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWALT, INC., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-33CB, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-33CB, LUZ C. RIVAS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB, ESTATES OF BOYNTON WATERS WEST HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellees.
No. 4D17-3629
[January 17, 2018]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph G. Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012CA010633.
Armando Rivas, Boynton Beach, pro se. Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, William P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Adam G. Schwartz of Akerman LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee The Bank of New York Mellon. KUNTZ, J. The Borrower appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate a foreclosure judgment. After the foreclosure judgment was rendered, the Borrower appealed the judgment. Later, and during the pendency of the Borrower’s appeal from the foreclosure judgment, the Borrower filed the motion to vacate at issue in this appeal. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate and the Borrower filed a notice of appeal.
The Bank asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Borrower’s motion to vacate during the pendency of the appeal of the foreclosure judgment and, as a result, the court’s order is void. Further, the Bank moves to dismiss this appeal, arguing that this Court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a void order. The Borrower responds
2
to the Bank’s motion to dismiss and, in addition to various other requests, asks that we vacate the court’s order denying the motion.
We agree that the circuit court’s order is void and that we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the court’s order. However, dismissal of the appeal is not the appropriate remedy, as we have jurisdiction to consider whether the circuit court acted outside the scope of its own jurisdiction. Instead, the appropriate remedy is to vacate or quash the void order. See, e.g., Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765, 765 (Fla. 1998); see also Sec. Nat’l Mortg. Co. v. Reid, 185 So. 3d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (declining to reach the merits of the order appealed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it).
We therefore do not reach the merits of this appeal and instead quash the order denying the motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment. In so doing we express no comment on the merits of the court’s denial of the motion to vacate nor the underlying foreclosure judgment.1
Order quashed. GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Errol O. Boothe v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 238 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State, 712 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1998)
- Sec. Nat'l Mortg. Co. v. Crevan O. Reid, 185 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)