COMMERCIAL LAUNDRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GOLF COURSE TOWERS ASSOCIATES; RONALD BERLIN; FAIRWAY PALM PARTNERS; 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.
Commercial Laundries appeals the trial court's order terminating its lease with an apartment complex after the property was foreclosed and a receiver appointed. The court reverses, holding that the trial court lost jurisdiction to terminate the lease after issuing a certificate of title in the foreclosure proceeding and that the court lacked authority to affect Commercial's interests as a nonparty to the foreclosure action.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate Commercial's lease because it lost jurisdiction to modify the substance of the final judgment after the certificate of title was issued, and it could not affect Commercial's interests as a nonparty to the foreclosure action whose rights cannot be impaired by a judgment in which it did not participate.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to modify the substance of a final judgment thirty days after its rendition, unless jurisdiction is expressly retained.
[2] In a foreclosure action, a trial court's jurisdiction over the property ends after the entry of a final judgment and the expiration of the time for altering, modifying, o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 loses jurisdiction to modify the substance of the final judgment thirty days after its rendition, Conner v. Northeastern Int'l Airways, Inc., 543 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), unless the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that a court loses jurisdiction to modify final judgments after thirty days unless it retains enforcement jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCommercial Laundries leased space in an apartment complex owned by Jose Milton beginning January 1, 1983, to place coin-operated washers and dryers. W…
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 Receiver'S Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Commercial Laundries, Inc. [Commercial], appeals a court order granting the receiver’s motion to terminate a lease. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)-(3)(C)(iii), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and hereby reverse.
Jose Milton, the owner of an apartment complex, entered into a lease with Commercial on January 1, 1983, whereby Commercial would rent space in the complex to place coin-operated washers and dryers. Milton sold the complex and the new owners entered into a mortgage with Balcor Real Estate Finance, Inc., dated October 10, 1984. In 1986, a foreclosure action was begun on this mortgage. In conjunction with the foreclosure proceeding, Ronald Berlin, was appointed receiver of the apartment complex in August 1989. As part of his duties as receiver, Berlin reviewed the contracts affecting the receivership estate. Berlin determined that Commercial’s lease was not beneficial to the estate and, therefore, sought court approval to terminate this contract. Commercial was not served or joined as a party in the foreclosure action. The court granted the receiver’s motion to terminate the agreement and entered an ex-parte order on December 19, 1989. Subsequently, a final judgment and certificate of title were issued in the foreclosure proceeding.
Commercial moved to vacate the December 19, 1989 order claiming lack of notice and due process. On April 5, 1990, the trial court granted Commercial’s motion to vacate and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the receiver’s motion to terminate the contract. After the hearing, the court again granted the receiver’s motion to terminate the contract. The court found that the agreement did not provide for a specified area to be leased; did not provide for a specified rent; and could be terminated by Commercial on thirty days notice. The court further held that the receiver had the authority to terminate the executory agreement. Commercial appeals the order dated May 14, 1990, terminating the contract.
A trial court loses jurisdiction to modify the substance of the final judgment thirty days after its rendition, Conner v. Northeastern Int’l Airways, Inc., 543 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), unless the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the judgment. See Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); A-One Coin Laundry Equip. Co. v. Waterside Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 561 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In an action relating to the foreclosure of property, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the property ends after the entry of a final judgment and the time for altering, modifying or vacating the judgment expires. Patin v. Popino, 459 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The confirmation of a judicial sale by the issuance of a certificate of title constitutes a final judgment. Confederate Point Partnership Ltd. v. Schatten, 278 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Therefore, in the instant case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate Commercial’s leasehold interest since the court did not retain jurisdiction and the court’s actions took place after the judicial sale and after the certificate of title which conveyed title to the property had already been issued.
In addition, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate Commercial’s lease upon the request of the receiver where Commercial was not a party to the foreclosure action. See Dundee Naval Stores v. McDowell, 65 Fla. 15, 61 So. 108 (1913). As a nonparty to the main action, Commercial’s interest cannot be affected by the final judgment. See Baltzell v. Daniel, 111 Fla. 303, 149 So. 639 (1933); Page v. Cop, 506 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
In summary, we find that the trial court’s jurisdiction to interfere with any contract affecting the property ceased with the issuance of the certificate of title and that Commercial’s leasehold interest in the property, as a nonparty to the main foreclosure action, was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. For these reasons, the order granting the receiver’s motion to terminate the lease is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowmar v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 188 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…gment. MTGLQ cannot enforce it because it was entered in favor of SunTrust. SunTrust cannot enforce it because it was no longer a party to the action and was no longer the holder of the note. Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Assocs., 568 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Because SunTrust was not a party when the final judgment of foreclosure was rendered, the trial court’s issuance of the final judgment of foreclosure in favor of SunTrust constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal. See…
-
Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), writ discharged, 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla.1975). The finality of a judgment occurs when no appeal is taken. Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Associates, 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (trial court loses jurisdiction to modify 30 days after rendition of the final judgment unless it retains jurisdiction); F.A Conner v. Northeastern Int’l Airways, Inc., 543 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also, Vazquez, supra,…
-
Holm v. Demetree, 681 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…el v. Hensel, 276 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Although perhaps not legally correct, the judgment under attack in [*869] this case has passed into the unassailable realm of finality. See Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Associates, 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, State, Department of Transportation, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). AFFIRMED. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dundee Naval Stores Co. v. McDowell, 65 Fla. 15 (Fla. 1913)
- Patin v. Popino, 459 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- F.A. Conner v. Ne. Int'l Airways, Inc., 543 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Soll v. Dayl M. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Baltzell v. Daniel, 111 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1933)
- Confederate Point P'ship, Ltd. v. Schatten, 278 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- A-One Coin Laundry Equip. Co. v. Waterside Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 561 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Page v. Milorad COP, 506 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Becker v. Winn-Dixie Store, Inc., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)