Garcia v. Christiana Trust ( 2016 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 19, 2016.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-735
Lower Tribunal No. 11-37387
________________
Eduardo Garcia,
Petitioner,
vs.
Christiana Trust, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio
Marin, Judge.
Sordo & Associates, P.A.; Arnaldo Velez, for petitioner.
John L. Penson, P.A. and John L. Penson, for respondent Christiana Trust.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
SUAREZ, C.J.
Eduardo Garcia petitions this court to enforce a mandate issued on June 5,
2014, or alternatively, for a writ of certiorari or prohibition. We treat this appeal as
a proceeding for a writ of certiorari and for the reasons stated below, grant the writ
and quash the order under review.
This ongoing and factually tortured litigation began when BankUnited
sought to foreclose on a mortgage purportedly signed by Eduardo Garcia and
Bertha Garcia, who were husband and wife at the time. Eduardo Garcia and
Bertha Garcia held title to the property as tenants by the entireties. A bench trial
on the foreclosure action was held and the trial court determined that Eduardo
Garcia’s signature on the mortgage documents had been forged by Bertha, his
wife. As such, in the final judgment of foreclosure, the trial court determined that
BankUnited held a lien for the total sum owed, but not as to defendant Eduardo
Garcia as his signature had been forged. The Final Judgment of Foreclosure
rendered February 28, 2013, ordered the sale of the property but specifically
provided that “[t]he sale shall not include the interest of the Defendant, Eduardo
Garcia, who prevailed in this action.” Only the interest of Bertha Garcia was to be
sold. Published notice of the sale did not indicate that only one of the two parties’
interests was salable but indicated the sale was for the entire fee. The Garcias filed
an emergency motion in the trial court to cancel the sale, citing their ownership by
the entirety, and arguing that Eduardo Garcia’s interest could not be separated out
for purposes of foreclosure and sale. The trial court denied the emergency motion
and the online sale went forward with no changes being made to the publication.
2
Rocketrider Pictures, LLC, was the purchaser. When Rocketrider, after the
sale, discovered that the property had been held as tenants by the entireties, it filed
an Objection to Sale in the trial court stating that its bid was based on the
assumption it was bidding on the entire fee and because the property had been held
by the entireties and could not be severed, Rocketrider actually received nothing in
the purchase. The trial court denied the motion and Rocketrider appealed. On that
appeal, this Court reversed the order denying Rocketrider’s objections to the
judicial sale and ordered the trial court to cancel the certificate of title issued to
Rocketrider as the buyer, and to return Rocketrider’s bid money. Rocketrider
Pictures, LLC v. BankUnited, et al., 138 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Although the propriety of the foreclosure itself was not an issue in or subject of
that appeal, this Court also, however, in its opinion reversed the Final Judgment of
Foreclosure to which Rocketrider was not a party. A mandate on that opinion then
issued.
Subsequent to the mandate, Eduardo Garcia sought entry in the trial court of
a judgment finding that he is not liable on the note and mortgage, and to quiet title.
On October 20, 2015, Christiana Trust, the successor in interest to BankUnited,
filed a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint in foreclosure and to add
new counts for breach of promissory note and equitable lien. Relying on the 2014
Rocketrider opinion from this Court that purportedly reversed the Final Judgment
3
below, the trial court denied Eduardo Garcia’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings and final judgment. The trial court, relying on this Court’s opinion in
Rocketrider that in part ordered reversal of the final judgment in foreclosure,
granted the Trust’s leave to amend the Complaint in Foreclosure. Eduardo Garcia
appealed bringing us to this point in this tangled litigation.
First, it is important to note that the Final Judgment in Foreclosure entered
February 28, 2013, was not appealed and is now, therefore, final. See Makar v.
Inv'rs Real Estate Mgmt., 553 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding a
judgment is a final adjudication of the merits of an action). Indeed, the 2013
Rocketrider appeal was not from the Final Judgment of Foreclosure but was
strictly limited to vacating the post-foreclosure judicial sale and returning
Rocketrider’s bid money. The only parties to that appeal were the parties to the
foreclosure sale, Rocketrider and the Bank; Eduardo Garcia was not a party to that
appeal. The Final Judgment of Foreclosure was not at issue in that appeal and the
language in Rocketrider purporting to reverse that final judgment is without legal
effect. See, e.g., Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193, 197 (Fla. 1965) (“The
jurisdiction of appellate courts to correct error in an order is likewise limited by
statute and rule in that such a court has no power whatsoever to act in a cause
unless the application for review be brought within the time and in the manner
provided.”); Denny v. Denny, 334 So. 2d 300, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (holding
4
that as the final judgment became a final decision, appealable as such, and where
no appeal was taken within the time prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules,
neither the trial court nor appellate court has jurisdiction to review it).
As the foreclosure (between Eduardo Garcia and the Bank) was already final
at the time Rocketrider filed its June 6, 2013 appeal from the post-judgment sale,
the Final Judgment of Foreclosure cannot be reversed nor, for that matter, can it be
re-opened.1 See Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Milne, 98 So. 3d 613, 615 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012) (finding a trial court loses jurisdiction of a cause after a judgment or final
decree has been entered and the time for filing petition for rehearing or motion for
new trial has expired or same has been denied); Harbor Bay Condominiums, Inc. v.
Basabe, 856 So. 2d 1067, 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
In this matter, notwithstanding the language contained in the 2014
Rocketrider opinion, neither this Court nor the trial court had jurisdiction to modify
or reopen the Final Judgment of Foreclosure because that judgment was final as to
Eduardo Garcia and the Bank, and Eduardo Garcia was not a party to the
1 “A trial judge is deprived of jurisdiction, not by the manner in which the
proceeding is terminated, but by the sheer finality of the act, whether judgment,
decree, order or stipulation, which concludes litigation. Once the litigation is
terminated and the time for appeal has run, that action is concluded for all time.
There is one exception to this absolute finality, and this is rule 1.540, which gives
the court jurisdiction to relieve a party from the act of finality in a narrow range of
circumstances.” Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 1986).
That rule was not invoked by the Bank, and the circumstances described by Rule
1.540 were not present in this record.
5
Rocketrider appeal. We therefore treat Eduardo Garcia’s present petition as a
request for writ of certiorari, grant the writ and quash the order below granting
Christiana Trust’s motion for leave to amend its complaint in foreclosure, and
remand with directions to reinstate the February 28, 2013 Final Judgment of
Foreclosure.
Petition granted, remanded with directions.
6