BRICKELL STATION TOWERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JDC (AMERICA) CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed trial court's default judgment and related orders against BST because the court decided matters not raised in proper pleadings, violating due process.
A trial court violates due process when it grants relief that was neither requested by appropriate pleadings nor tried by consent.
[1] A trial court violates a party's due process rights by granting relief that was neither requested by appropriate pleadings nor tried by consent.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBST and JDC were parties to a mortgage agreement and joint venture project. JDC moved to appoint a receiver and BST moved to clarify payment orders an…
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 Mortgage Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brickell Station Towers, Inc., [BST] appeals a trial court order ruling BST in default of its mortgage agreement with appellee JDC (America) Corporation [JDC]. In conjunction with that ruling the court also found that JDC had the right to remove Wenzel Investment Company, as manager of the parties’ joint venture project, and that JDC was entitled to divest BST of its voting rights on the joint venture’s governing board.
The trial court conducted the hearing to consider JDC’s third motion to appoint a receiver and BST’s motion to clarify an order directing payment of rents, to direct Amerifirst Trust Company to deliver rents, and to prohibit JDC from interfering with the operation of the property. The court deferred ruling on JDC’s motion and denied BST’s motions.
We hold that the trial court decided matters which were not the subject of appropriate pleadings. In granting relief which was neither requested by appropriate pleadings, nor tried by consent, the trial court entered the order in violation of BST’s due process rights.
Accordingly, we reverse. See Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334, 337 (Fla.1957); Southern Indus. Tire, Inc. v. Chicago Indus. Tire, Inc., 541 So. 2d 790, 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc., 467 So. 2d 404, 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wachovia Mortg. Corp. v. Posti, 166 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ork Mellon v. Reyes, 126 So. 3d 304, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Further, granting relief which was neither requested by appropriate pleadings, nor tried by consent, is a violation of due process. Brickell [*946] Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 549 So. 2d 203, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here, the final judgment was void because it awarded affirmative relief that was not requested in the pleadings or tried by consent. - Before trial, the court dismissed the homeowner’s counterclaim seeking a HAMP modificati…
-
Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp., 259 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Am. Residential Equities LLC v. Saint Catherine Holdings Corp., 306 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ive of a party’s due process rights.” (citing Epic Metals Corp. v. Samari Lake East Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Robinson v. Malik, 135 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961))); Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 549 So. 2d 203, 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). “A plaintiff seeking to foreclose a mortgage must tender the original promissory note to the trial court or seek to reestablish the lost note pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes.” Boumarate v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc., 467 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- S. Indus. Tire, Inc. v. Chicago Indus. Tire, Inc., 541 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)