Third DCA Issues Rare Ruling Against Lender in Jurisdiction Squabble
The appellate court ruled against Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. on Thursday after finding the Miami-Dade Circuit Court that ruled in the underlying case lacked jurisdiction.
October 18, 2018 at 05:51 PM
4 minute read
A court of appeals with a reputation for issuing adverse opinions against borrowers in foreclosure cases has ruled against a major mortgage servicing company.
In an opinion issued Wednesday, the Third District Court of Appeal vacated a trial court's ruling concerning Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.'s foreclosure action against Ricardo Garcia, and remanded the case for further proceedings in the borrower's favor.
The appellate court found that the lower court ultimately lacked jurisdiction when it entered the final foreclosure judgment, because the case had been removed to federal court just one day prior.
Read the opinion:
“State court jurisdiction ceases upon removal of a case to federal court, and any pre-remand proceedings occurring in the state court after the case has been removed are void,” the opinion said. Citing precedent, the opinion held that “even an improper removal to federal court, or a removal for improper motives, will not preserve state court jurisdiction.”
The foreclosure case against Garcia was removed to federal court after one of his tenants filed a cross-complaint against the borrower and his wife for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act. The tenant's complaint alleged that the Garcias had communicated that “the subject mortgage had been rescinded.” This alleged misrepresentation entitled the renter to remain in the property, according to the tenant, who filed to remove the entire foreclosure action to federal court on July 10, 2017.
By July 19, 2017, the federal court had remanded the case back to the circuit court. But during that time — just one day after the removal — trial judge Lisa S. Walsh had entered the final foreclosure judgment in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.
It was the second time that a Garcia tenant had stepped into the fray. Months earlier, in January, a different renter had “filed an identical cross-complaint and sought removal of the entire case to federal court,” according to the appellate ruling. The U.S. District Court also remanded that case back to the circuit within weeks.
Now the question was whether Walsh's ruling would stand.
“Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the final judgment, we are compelled to reverse the final judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Third DCA Judge Edwin A. Scales III wrote in a unanimous decision with Judges Kevin Emas and Ivan F. Fernandez.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.'s attorney, Shawn Taylor of Fort Lauderdale's DeLuca Law Group, cited pending litigation in declining to comment.
The Third District Court of Appeal has cultivated a reputation for disproportionately ruling against borrowers in foreclosure cases. In February, Fort Lauderdale attorney Evan M. Rosen issued a news release titled “What's wrong with Florida's Third District Court of Appeal?” In it, he compiled data illustrating that the Third DCA rules against homeowners far more than other Florida appellate courts. He found, for instance, that South Florida's other appellate state court, the Fourth DCA, ruled for homeowners 73 percent of the time, compared to the Third DCA's 13 percent. The Second DCA found for homeowners 84 percent of the time, the First 83 percent and the Fifth DCA 72 percent.
“Statistics reveal what experienced Florida foreclosure attorneys already know,” Rosen wrote in his release. “The Third District Court of Appeal has an issue properly adjudicating foreclosure cases.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250